Sick of the parts her studio kept handing her, this two-time Oscar winner sailed for England in 1936 to work for somebody else — and a London judge ruled she had broken her contract for "no discoverable reason except that she wanted more money."
The full story
In Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209, decided 19 October 1936, Branson J of the English High Court held that Bette Davis — sued under her married name — had breached her exclusive studio contract by going to England to film for another producer. He rejected her restraint-of-trade defence, found she had broken the contract 'for no discoverable reason except that she wanted more money', and granted an injunction restraining her from rendering services in any motion picture or stage production for anyone else, for three years or the residue of the contract term, whichever was shorter. He expressly declined to enforce the wider covenant, which is why the case is still taught. She returned to Warner Bros.
The clues we handed out
— The injunction stopped her acting for anyone else, and ran for three years or whatever was left of the contract, whichever was shorter. She went back to the studio.
— She had argued in court that the contract made her something close to a slave. The judge was unmoved.
— The case is still taught in English law schools as authority on restraint of trade.
— She won both her Academy Awards in the 1930s, and was one of the biggest stars on the very lot she was suing.
— Initials: B.D.
How this case played
ALLEGEDLY* edition No. 35. Three strikes to name Bette Davis, with a free clue
unlocked after every miss.
*A blind item you can check. Every puzzle is drawn from the public record —
court records, official rulings, and moments that unfolded on live television — and the
records are linked above. Allegedly.
Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookie Policy · Sitemap