of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade

Modern life does make a lot of people change their ways and take a different look at different aspects of their lives. Everything is viewed from the economical point of view. Emotions should be held up in such thing as business. And a lot of things are taken in the borders of numerous contracts and agreements. Nowadays contracts deal with almost every aspect of the lives of our contemporaries, starting with a wedding and ending with contracts involving giant companies.

A contract in these cases is a certain guarantee that is obtained by both sides. Guarantees, in the first place of getting exactly what they want and for the amount of time they want to. A contract, when signed should be analyzed by experts in order to find any possible gaps in it. Gaps, that eventually can be fatal for the person, who signs it. This issue especially concerns, as well, people who deal with the musical industry. Due to its changeability it is very important to be able to foresee the possible sides that can be reviewed. Because this future changes can cost quiet a bit. For example a singer can loose his voice or decide to change his recording company being on top of thing. Of course it is not possible to take every possible change in count, but still a deep analysis is required. An objective analysis will always help in deciding on how important the issue of the argument and the way the present conflict can be solved. When a person is already under the contract there are not many ways of changing anything. So all the thinking should be done beforehand. If we take, for example, contracts with record companies, singers and artists should be very attentive, too.

Though there have not been many court cases dealing with arguments over the contracts between recording companies and singers or artists, still there some examples that will definitely make the artist’s attorneys to become more beware of any articles discussed in the contract. One of such unexpected event can be the change of the leading powers of the company, or a company can be taken over by another one. A very bright example of issues like this is the famous George Michael’s “divorce” from Sony Music. He “called his collapse in relations with the record label irreversible” and said he wanted “out of a contract that tied him down for the rest of his career”. The contract had become increasingly inflexible and not fair from the singer’s perspective. But before analyzing the whole case we should start with George Michael himself. Michael began his career by forming the pop duo Wham! together with his best friend Andrew Ridgeley in the early 1980s. His work covers a variety of pop styles, from ballads to funky dance tracks. In a career spanning nearly 20 years, George Michael has been responsible for more than 75 million album sales. He is definitely related to the group of the most popular singers of the last 20 years. And has won the recognition of million of people.

Of course such a popularity always goes on the same path with detailed observation of everything going on in the star’s life. It especially concerns court cases and any difficulties with the law that the artist can possibly have. There are not many court cases involving serious disputes between artists and recording companies over contracts, and although there have been disputes, these often relate to other issues. From the point of view of a recording company a contract remains a contract, no matter what happens, excluding the articles discussed in the paper itself. Sony has always created high quality contracts and Georges Michael suit, dealing with getting freedom from the company’s policy was a great deal for both sides. To get inside the very sense of this case we need to understand the situation that was back in 1992-1993. For a long time George Michael was satisfied with the contract and his career was going upstairs. He recorded songs that had very high sales.

Of course, Sony, as a well-known company that knows the musical audience very well did have certain restrictions towards Michael’s songs. It wanted certain music from Michael, music that would be popular among the audience 100% and it did have the experience to claim that. The company constantly investigates the popularity of different kind of music and has reasonable facts for not wanting the singer to change his musical direction or so. It seemed that it was a question of creative freedom that was not given by Sony, according to George’s Michael’s words, but at the same time during the court case Michael named both Tommy Mottola, and another of his close business associates at Sony, Don Ienner as the people he blamed for souring his attitude towards Sony. That gave the case a negative color from Michael’s side, because it started including emotional aspects. “Artistic freedom” was what George Michael urged and he was ready for anything to fight for it. At that moment Michael had followed up the best-selling album “Faith” with “Listen Without Prejudice Volume I”, which sold to a far more selective audience. Sony had to deal with a major grievance from George Michael. Relations between Michael and Sony got worse to a point in October 1993 when he started legal proceedings against the company to get out of his contract.

Of course George Michael tried first to solve the “problem” without any court introduction, but could not manage it. He tried to make the hearings happen sooner, but the judge, Mr. Justice Knox, rejected a plea by Michael’s lawyer, Mark Cran, to bring the case to court in June. And in stead of this the hearing was in October. Though Michael was disappointed with that, Michael’s solicitor, Tony Russell, said that October was not the worst case direction. And added that it could have happened even two or three years later if the case had to wait its turn. Another wrong step that was made by Michael was his massive campaign about Sony being undertaken for Mariah Carey (who was later to marry the Sony boss Tommy Mottola).Sony responded properly and said that it was a provocation not based on any valuable facts. Such conduction was not on Michael’s hand. And the legal forces supported Sony.

The case lasted from October 1993 till July 1994. Sony is musical recording giant and being involved in such a law case was a big matter for them. It was their priority to win the case to show that the company was, is and will be very competitive. Among George Michael’s complaints was that the company’s American branch was “not prepared” to support the singer’s change of career direction, as evidenced by their handling of “Listen Without Prejudice”. And George Michael seeking “artistic freedom” was a case of honor to win in front of all the world audience. According to Michael’s attorney, the singer’s decision to not appear in his own music videos was a major factor in the suit: “Following the success of “Faith”, Michael felt that he needed a change of direction--he wanted to concentrate on his music and play down the image of being a sex symbol...He was entitled by his contract to make these decisions, but at the same time he realized he needed the cooperation of the record company, and was anxious that it should support him...However, he felt that his record company in the United States was not prepared to do this.” So from George Michael’s words he wanted no more to be a sex symbol and the company pushed on him. But the “pressure” was fair for being a pop-star for so many years, and being a sex symbol too does put certain obligations of the star. So when George Michael called his collapse in relations with the record label irreversible and said he wanted out of a contract that tied him down for the rest of his career - was not completely honest towards the company’s policy. He wrote a 66 page-long statement concerning his complaints against Sony Music. Michael claimed the 15-year contract he signed with Sony “amounts to unfair restraint of trade for the rest of his career”. Michael insisted that he was made to sign the contract in 1988 after Sony took over his old label, CBS United Kingdom. Gordon Pollock, Sony’s attorney after all these accuses Michael performed in court did not hesitate is accusing George Michael in being a super-rich pop star with an oversexed image who had broken many promises and contracts. His statement was supported by numerous examples.

Though Michael decided to tone down his image as a sex symbol because as he claimed he had grown out of it and become more serious he had nothing to say when Mr. Pollock suggested the star had manipulated his earlier, sexy image, made “particular use of the pelvic waggle” and knew he risked losing fans by later changing that look. Michael’s lawyer, Mark Cran, said his client wasn’t just trying to wriggle out of the eight-record, $16 million contract signed in 1988. “It’s about an agreement which binds George Michael for the whole of his professional career in terms which are capable of being worked to his substantial disadvantage,” said Cran. George Michael, who was looking forward his “divorce” from Sony faced a big gap in his career. And a lot of problems in connection with that. And though he insisted on court’s declaration of his Sony 1988 contract null and void he made a lot of wrong steps and failed the case. The results of the court were that the Sony deal was “reasonable and fair”. George Michael blamed his Sony management team for the rift. In conclusion he added that he expected “that the consequence of his new direction would be a loss of sales. He cannot blame Sony for the fact that he was right”. He was left facing a legal bill in the around 7 million and was not released from the contract. And only in July 1995, Sony agreed to release Michael from his contract in return for the rights to a greatest hits package, a share in the profits from future albums, and a $40 million lump sum from his new labels, Virgin in the UK and DreamWorks in the US. And when Sony finally gave “freedom” to the pop-star Sony declared to the disappointment of the audience that “both parties have agreed to keep terms of the agreement confidential”.

And as the result of improper steps the only thing George Michael could say was: “I am shocked at the judgment. It means that even though I created and paid for my work, I will never own it, or have any rights over it”. Perhaps, if he would not have made several statements and would not have included emotional aspects to the court the results would have been different. But for now this case is a good example from which certain lessons should be taken. George Michael did swear he would never deal with Sony again. Nevertheless he continued and renewed his contract with Sony. On of the primary reason he declared was the change of the label boss Tommy Mottola. And only now he revealed to the audience that former Sony Music boss Tommy Mottola was at the centre of his decision to quit the record label in 1993 and fight Sony Music for his artistic freedom in court. So even swearing he would never have anything in common with Sony after the failure in 1993 court case Michael resigned with the record company last year. The decision by itself is very surprising and does make people to change their understanding of the 1993 court case. “It had everything to do with Mottola leaving. I never had any problems with Sony in the UK, but America holds the purse strings” – that is what Mr. Michael says, letting the whole court big case concentrate in his own words :”If you fall out with the boss, you’re in trouble.” Business is always a relationship of serious people that do not let any emotions in the financial and business matters.

It is not a place where you can blame what is happening only on one of the sides. If George Michael would have shown more flexibility, tolerance and cold-objective understanding of the situation he would not have gone to court in the first place. Speaking about contracts it is very important to say that the major thing is – compromises, because both sides have to benefit from the union. 11 years after fighting, at a personal cost of ?2 million and George Michael still returns to Sony. It was a brief summary of everything that happened in court, but generally, the core of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade c

n the star’s life. It especially concerns court cases and any difficulties with the law that the artist can possibly have. There are not many court cases involving serious disputes between artists and recording companies over contracts, and although there have been disputes, these often relate to other issues. From the point of view of a recording company a contract remains a contract, no matter what happens, excluding the articles discussed in the paper itself. Sony has always created high quality contracts and Georges Michael suit, dealing with getting freedom from the company’s policy was a great deal for both sides. To get inside the very sense of this case we need to understand the situation that was back in 1992-1993. For a long time George Michael was satisfied with the contract and his career was going upstairs. He recorded songs that had very high sales.

Of course, Sony, as a well-known company that knows the musical audience very well did have certain restrictions towards Michael’s songs. It wanted certain music from Michael, music that would be popular among the audience 100% and it did have the experience to claim that. The company constantly investigates the popularity of different kind of music and has reasonable facts for not wanting the singer to change his musical direction or so. It seemed that it was a question of creative freedom that was not given by Sony, according to George’s Michael’s words, but at the same time during the court case Michael named both Tommy Mottola, and another of his close business associates at Sony, Don Ienner as the people he blamed for souring his attitude towards Sony. That gave the case a negative color from Michael’s side, because it started including emotional aspects. “Artistic freedom” was what George Michael urged and he was ready for anything to fight for it. At that moment Michael had followed up the best-selling album “Faith” with “Listen Without Prejudice Volume I”, which sold to a far more selective audience. Sony had to deal with a major grievance from George Michael. Relations between Michael and Sony got worse to a point in October 1993 when he started legal proceedings against the company to get out of his contract.

Of course George Michael tried first to solve the “problem” without any court introduction, but could not manage it. He tried to make the hearings happen sooner, but the judge, Mr. Justice Knox, rejected a plea by Michael’s lawyer, Mark Cran, to bring the case to court in June. And in stead of this the hearing was in October. Though Michael was disappointed with that, Michael’s solicitor, Tony Russell, said that October was not the worst case direction. And added that it could have happened even two or three years later if the case had to wait its turn. Another wrong step that was made by Michael was his massive campaign about Sony being undertaken for Mariah Carey (who was later to marry the Sony boss Tommy Mottola).Sony responded properly and said that it was a provocation not based on any valuable facts. Such conduction was not on Michael’s hand. And the legal forces supported Sony.

The case lasted from October 1993 till July 1994. Sony is musical recording giant and being involved in such a law case was a big matter for them. It was their priority to win the case to show that the company was, is and will be very competitive. Among George Michael’s complaints was that the company’s American branch was “not prepared” to support the singer’s change of career direction, as evidenced by their handling of “Listen Without Prejudice”. And George Michael seeking “artistic freedom” was a case of honor to win in front of all the world audience. According to Michael’s attorney, the singer’s decision to not appear in his own music videos was a major factor in the suit: “Following the success of “Faith”, Michael felt that he needed a change of direction--he wanted to concentrate on his music and play down the image of being a sex symbol...He was entitled by his contract to make these decisions, but at the same time he realized he needed the cooperation of the record company, and was anxious that it should support him...However, he felt that his record company in the United States was not prepared to do this.” So from George Michael’s words he wanted no more to be a sex symbol and the company pushed on him. But the “pressure” was fair for being a pop-star for so many years, and being a sex symbol too does put certain obligations of the star. So when George Michael called his collapse in relations with the record label irreversible and said he wanted out of a contract that tied him down for the rest of his career - was not completely honest towards the company’s policy. He wrote a 66 page-long statement concerning his complaints against Sony Music. Michael claimed the 15-year contract he signed with Sony “amounts to unfair restraint of trade for the rest of his career”. Michael insisted that he was made to sign the contract in 1988 after Sony took over his old label, CBS United Kingdom. Gordon Pollock, Sony’s attorney after all these accuses Michael performed in court did not hesitate is accusing George Michael in being a super-rich pop star with an oversexed image who had broken many promises and contracts. His statement was supported by numerous examples.

Though Michael decided to tone down his image as a sex symbol because as he claimed he had grown out of it and become more serious he had nothing to say when Mr. Pollock suggested the star had manipulated his earlier, sexy image, made “particular use of the pelvic waggle” and knew he risked losing fans by later changing that look. Michael’s lawyer, Mark Cran, said his client wasn’t just trying to wriggle out of the eight-record, $16 million contract signed in 1988. “It’s about an agreement which binds George Michael for the whole of his professional career in terms which are capable of being worked to his substantial disadvantage,” said Cran. George Michael, who was looking forward his “divorce” from Sony faced a big gap in his career. And a lot of problems in connection with that. And though he insisted on court’s declaration of his Sony 1988 contract null and void he made a lot of wrong steps and failed the case. The results of the court were that the Sony deal was “reasonable and fair”. George Michael blamed his Sony management team for the rift. In conclusion he added that he expected “that the consequence of his new direction would be a loss of sales. He cannot blame Sony for the fact that he was right”. He was left facing a legal bill in the around 7 million and was not released from the contract. And only in July 1995, Sony agreed to release Michael from his contract in return for the rights to a greatest hits package, a share in the profits from future albums, and a $40 million lump sum from his new labels, Virgin in the UK and DreamWorks in the US. And when Sony finally gave “freedom” to the pop-star Sony declared to the disappointment of the audience that “both parties have agreed to keep terms of the agreement confidential”.

And as the result of improper steps the only thing George Michael could say was: “I am shocked at the judgment. It means that even though I created and paid for my work, I will never own it, or have any rights over it”. Perhaps, if he would not have made several statements and would not have included emotional aspects to the court the results would have been different. But for now this case is a good example from which certain lessons should be taken. George Michael did swear he would never deal with Sony again. Nevertheless he continued and renewed his contract with Sony. On of the primary reason he declared was the change of the label boss Tommy Mottola. And only now he revealed to the audience that former Sony Music boss Tommy Mottola was at the centre of his decision to quit the record label in 1993 and fight Sony Music for his artistic freedom in court. So even swearing he would never have anything in common with Sony after the failure in 1993 court case Michael resigned with the record company last year. The decision by itself is very surprising and does make people to change their understanding of the 1993 court case. “It had everything to do with Mottola leaving. I never had any problems with Sony in the UK, but America holds the purse strings” – that is what Mr. Michael says, letting the whole court big case concentrate in his own words :”If you fall out with the boss, you’re in trouble.” Business is always a relationship of serious people that do not let any emotions in the financial and business matters.

It is not a place where you can blame what is happening only on one of the sides. If George Michael would have shown more flexibility, tolerance and cold-objective understanding of the situation he would not have gone to court in the first place. Speaking about contracts it is very important to say that the major thing is – compromises, because both sides have to benefit from the union. 11 years after fighting, at a personal cost of ?2 million and George Michael still returns to Sony. It was a brief summary of everything that happened in court, but generally, the core of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade

l’s hand. And the legal forces supported Sony.

The case lasted from October 1993 till July 1994. Sony is musical recording giant and being involved in such a law case was a big matter for them. It was their priority to win the case to show that the company was, is and will be very competitive. Among George Michael’s complaints was that the company’s American branch was “not prepared” to support the singer’s change of career direction, as evidenced by their handling of “Listen Without Prejudice”. And George Michael seeking “artistic freedom” was a case of honor to win in front of all the world audience. According to Michael’s attorney, the singer’s decision to not appear in his own music videos was a major factor in the suit: “Following the success of “Faith”, Michael felt that he needed a change of direction--he wanted to concentrate on his music and play down the image of being a sex symbol...He was entitled by his contract to make these decisions, but at the same time he realized he needed the cooperation of the record company, and was anxious that it should support him...However, he felt that his record company in the United States was not prepared to do this.” So from George Michael’s words he wanted no more to be a sex symbol and the company pushed on him. But the “pressure” was fair for being a pop-star for so many years, and being a sex symbol too does put certain obligations of the star. So when George Michael called his collapse in relations with the record label irreversible and said he wanted out of a contract that tied him down for the rest of his career - was not completely honest towards the company’s policy. He wrote a 66 page-long statement concerning his complaints against Sony Music. Michael claimed the 15-year contract he signed with Sony “amounts to unfair restraint of trade for the rest of his career”. Michael insisted that he was made to sign the contract in 1988 after Sony took over his old label, CBS United Kingdom. Gordon Pollock, Sony’s attorney after all these accuses Michael performed in court did not hesitate is accusing George Michael in being a super-rich pop star with an oversexed image who had broken many promises and contracts. His statement was supported by numerous examples.

Though Michael decided to tone down his image as a sex symbol because as he claimed he had grown out of it and become more serious he had nothing to say when Mr. Pollock suggested the star had manipulated his earlier, sexy image, made “particular use of the pelvic waggle” and knew he risked losing fans by later changing that look. Michael’s lawyer, Mark Cran, said his client wasn’t just trying to wriggle out of the eight-record, $16 million contract signed in 1988. “It’s about an agreement which binds George Michael for the whole of his professional career in terms which are capable of being worked to his substantial disadvantage,” said Cran. George Michael, who was looking forward his “divorce” from Sony faced a big gap in his career. And a lot of problems in connection with that. And though he insisted on court’s declaration of his Sony 1988 contract null and void he made a lot of wrong steps and failed the case. The results of the court were that the Sony deal was “reasonable and fair”. George Michael blamed his Sony management team for the rift. In conclusion he added that he expected “that the consequence of his new direction would be a loss of sales. He cannot blame Sony for the fact that he was right”. He was left facing a legal bill in the around 7 million and was not released from the contract. And only in July 1995, Sony agreed to release Michael from his contract in return for the rights to a greatest hits package, a share in the profits from future albums, and a $40 million lump sum from his new labels, Virgin in the UK and DreamWorks in the US. And when Sony finally gave “freedom” to the pop-star Sony declared to the disappointment of the audience that “both parties have agreed to keep terms of the agreement confidential”.

And as the result of improper steps the only thing George Michael could say was: “I am shocked at the judgment. It means that even though I created and paid for my work, I will never own it, or have any rights over it”. Perhaps, if he would not have made several statements and would not have included emotional aspects to the court the results would have been different. But for now this case is a good example from which certain lessons should be taken. George Michael did swear he would never deal with Sony again. Nevertheless he continued and renewed his contract with Sony. On of the primary reason he declared was the change of the label boss Tommy Mottola. And only now he revealed to the audience that former Sony Music boss Tommy Mottola was at the centre of his decision to quit the record label in 1993 and fight Sony Music for his artistic freedom in court. So even swearing he would never have anything in common with Sony after the failure in 1993 court case Michael resigned with the record company last year. The decision by itself is very surprising and does make people to change their understanding of the 1993 court case. “It had everything to do with Mottola leaving. I never had any problems with Sony in the UK, but America holds the purse strings” – that is what Mr. Michael says, letting the whole court big case concentrate in his own words :”If you fall out with the boss, you’re in trouble.” Business is always a relationship of serious people that do not let any emotions in the financial and business matters.

It is not a place where you can blame what is happening only on one of the sides. If George Michael would have shown more flexibility, tolerance and cold-objective understanding of the situation he would not have gone to court in the first place. Speaking about contracts it is very important to say that the major thing is – compromises, because both sides have to benefit from the union. 11 years after fighting, at a personal cost of ?2 million and George Michael still returns to Sony. It was a brief summary of everything that happened in court, but generally, the core of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade

d on court’s declaration of his Sony 1988 contract null and void he made a lot of wrong steps and failed the case. The results of the court were that the Sony deal was “reasonable and fair”. George Michael blamed his Sony management team for the rift. In conclusion he added that he expected “that the consequence of his new direction would be a loss of sales. He cannot blame Sony for the fact that he was right”. He was left facing a legal bill in the around 7 million and was not released from the contract. And only in July 1995, Sony agreed to release Michael from his contract in return for the rights to a greatest hits package, a share in the profits from future albums, and a $40 million lump sum from his new labels, Virgin in the UK and DreamWorks in the US. And when Sony finally gave “freedom” to the pop-star Sony declared to the disappointment of the audience that “both parties have agreed to keep terms of the agreement confidential”.

And as the result of improper steps the only thing George Michael could say was: “I am shocked at the judgment. It means that even though I created and paid for my work, I will never own it, or have any rights over it”. Perhaps, if he would not have made several statements and would not have included emotional aspects to the court the results would have been different. But for now this case is a good example from which certain lessons should be taken. George Michael did swear he would never deal with Sony again. Nevertheless he continued and renewed his contract with Sony. On of the primary reason he declared was the change of the label boss Tommy Mottola. And only now he revealed to the audience that former Sony Music boss Tommy Mottola was at the centre of his decision to quit the record label in 1993 and fight Sony Music for his artistic freedom in court. So even swearing he would never have anything in common with Sony after the failure in 1993 court case Michael resigned with the record company last year. The decision by itself is very surprising and does make people to change their understanding of the 1993 court case. “It had everything to do with Mottola leaving. I never had any problems with Sony in the UK, but America holds the purse strings” – that is what Mr. Michael says, letting the whole court big case concentrate in his own words :”If you fall out with the boss, you’re in trouble.” Business is always a relationship of serious people that do not let any emotions in the financial and business matters.

It is not a place where you can blame what is happening only on one of the sides. If George Michael would have shown more flexibility, tolerance and cold-objective understanding of the situation he would not have gone to court in the first place. Speaking about contracts it is very important to say that the major thing is – compromises, because both sides have to benefit from the union. 11 years after fighting, at a personal cost of ?2 million and George Michael still returns to Sony. It was a brief summary of everything that happened in court, but generally, the core of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade

of the dispute had two main issues. Speaking court language, George Michael alleged that his recording agreement with Sony was void or unenforceable on two counts:

• As an unreasonable restraint of trade.

• As an agreement which infringed Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (which, broadly, prohibits anti-competitive agreements).

This two main problems turned out to be a huge court case that George Michael was not ready for. Just to refresh the situation before it – the original contract was signed in 1984 with Wham! duo. When it broke up, the agreement continued spreading on George Michael and the contract was revised in 1988. In this contract it was taken into account that George Michael became a solo-singer and the popularity he obtained as being one and he signed he contract. So later George Michael argued on many things, argued that a number of terms of the 1988 agreement were unreasonable restraints of trade:

1. Exclusivity - broadly, he could not record or perform for third parties.

2. Duration of the contract - it was argued that the term of the 1988 agreement was capable of exceeding 20 years.

3. Post-term re-recording restrictions - this prevented him recording a relevant composition for a third party for up to five years from the date of recording.

4. Sony was not contractually obliged to release his records.

5. Royalty provisions - it was argued that these were inequitably weighted in favor of the record company.

6. Artistic control - over which he alleged he had no control.

Of course, he had a right to argue on that, but he was well acquainted with the contract when he signed it. This six main arguments were reviewed by the judge in detail. In his analysis he turned to certain important facts.

In the first place he said that the 1988 agreement was a compromise agreement of a restraint of trade issue. It was also about certain public interest and promises which had to deal with the contract signed by George Michael. Then, he also added that it would be unjust to Sony to review the 1988 agreement as unenforceable or void contract on he basis that George Michael received numerous expert legal advice at all times. One other thing that the judge pointed out was that George Michael was already a “superstar” when he decided to renegotiate the 1988 agreement and had declared the 1988 agreement void on the basis of restraint of trade, after he found out it was possible to do. It is possible to name three questions that are the major considerations in a case relying on the common law doctrine of restraint of trade:

• Does the restriction protect a legitimate interest or does it go further than merely giving reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it was granted?

• Is the interest of the party being restrained?

• Is the restriction reasonable in the public interest?

All of the above were reviewed by the judge and deeply analyzed by him. The conclusion, the verdict of the judge was that though law doctrine of restraint of trade can be used with contracts like that, taking in account the peculiarity of his one, it can not be applied to it. He declared this contract to be a “special” one, an exclusion. The judge also made a strong stress on the Sony Music interests in this case, for they had made certain investments in the development of George Michael’s career as an artist and it is natural that they want to sell as many records as it is possible. Financial expert David Ravden drew up the audit report to show all the gains made by the record company from its exploitation of the singer’s music. The report was aimed to show all profits derived by Sony from the exploitation of Michael’s music. And Gordon Pollock successfully argued on certain parts of the audit report performed by George Michael. According to the rule of judge Jonathan Parker some part of audit reports performed by George Michael’s as evidence in his restraint of trade case against Sony Music were inadmissible.

According to these three questions the judge declared his verdict. The judge said the agreement was “both reasonable between the parties and reasonable in the public interest”. George Michael did not prove that Sony Music “has obtained an unfair advantage by acting in a morally reprehensible way”.

The case could be improved by changing George Michael’s behavior and making him try not to get everything at once. The change of his strategy would have been beneficial for him. If the case would have been viewed in a close meeting, and not demanding so much at once George Michael definitely had a chance to “win”. But suing such a giant company, and accusing it of so many things was ,no doubt, pointless. George Michael was young and ambitious and could see the achievement of his goal only through public. This kind of strategy was inappropriate with major companies. He tried to prove something to Sony through the court case, making loud statements. And almost not having required evidence. But speaking specifically, George Michael should have insisted on voiding the 1984 contract in the first place and he also should have gone for partial “freedom” first in couple of issues, and later on of the rest. The aggressive point he took did not bring him any advantages over Sony. He only aroused the “backfire” reaction.

One of his primary mistakes was being to affirmative in the accuses he made in front of Sony Music’s face. The company had made a great a great investment in him and the points had to do with some payback that it required in any contract. It is a well-known business contract scheme: “favor-payment”. And when on of the sides gets a share from a contract and does not pay back to the other side it can be called – no following the articles. And it is a serious matter that can be taken to court.

In the very beginning of this paper we said couple of words of he importance of a contract that is signed and once again we want to turn to it. George Michael had obligations in front of recording company that had been providing its services to him for years, making everything possible to make his songs top-hits. Seeking for “creativity freedom” is an honestly good and highly respected thing. New direction of the singer’s music is a great idea, but this idea has to go along with the contract that already exists. A recording company is in the first place interested in the profit from the singer’s music, and is always beware of new trends that can be less popular among the audience. George Michael had a strong desire to change his image but did not take into account the “public” factor and from our point of view he was way “confident” in himself as a “star”. He forgot everybody is equal in front of the Court and everything is looked upon very objectively. George Michael did make mistakes that were the cost of this court case against Sony music. His demand could have been fulfilled but not in such a way and not all at the same moment. Mr. Michael had to be more patient and forward-looking, for this law suit brought him a lot of troubles, starting with the time he was in the process itself and ending with his recording problems. Yes, Mr. George Michael lost the case, but he definitely learned a good lesson from it. And one of the consequences of that is his renewed contract with Sony now, in 2004. The singer has signed to Sony in a deal that is thought to cover his “extensive back catalogue”. Mr. George Michael’s accuses of Sony’s attitude and “professional slavery” turned out to be a long year fight that could have been stopped long ago and not even get started. And his failure in his court wrangle with Sony in 1993 could not have happened either.

Custom essays
buy essay
term paper