ROSES LABEL BATTLE RUMBLES ON

THE STONE ROSES' battle to get out of their Silvertone recording contract has been raging all week in the High Court.

While Silvertone's QC has accused the band of crying "Boo-hoo, we want to get out" and at the same time admitted to a mistake in the contract, the Roses have insisted that they are not legally bound by the 1988 contract with Silvertone and Zomba Music Publishers because it's unfair, oppressive and a restraint of trade.

Peter Prescott, QC, for Silvertone, asked Judge Humphries to grant a declaration that the contract is enforceable. The judge granted an interim injunction stopping the group from recording for any other company pending the outcome of the case.

Mr Prescott claimed Silvertone took a big financial risk in signing The Stone Roses before they were established, and invested £1 million in the band before seeing any profit.
He said, "Unless you are an eccentric philanthropist, no record company is going to support a group in this way unless it has an exclusive right to their recording services. It is normal in the trade for such a contract to be entered into and for a substantial time."

Mr Prescott added that the group were given legal advice when they signed. "They can't now say, Boo-hoo, we want to get out.The group and their manager, deny breach of contract by seeking to join another record company. They say the Silvertone recording contract and the accompanying publishing contract are void and should be set aside.

Mr Prescott said the group had agreed a variation in the contract and accepted extra money. He added, "It's far too late in the day to say, "Oh well, that has to be ignored." Silvertone, however, admitted that the contract "had got garbled in some way" and contradicted itself.

Part of the document, read in isolation, said The Stone Roses were tied to Silvertone until nine months after the company had released their minimum recording commitment in the US even though the company was under no obligation ever to release records in America.

If there was no US release, the contract would never end, and the band would be bound to Silvertone for the rest of their lives. But Mr Prescott argued that a reading of "the four comers of the document" made it clear that the contract meant not nine months from release in America but nine months from delivery by the group to Silvertone of their minimum recording commitment.

"The words 'released in the US' must be treated as a mistake," he said. He asked the judge to give effect to the "true underlying interition gathered from the words of the document read as a whole."

The Stone Roses did not themselves appear in court, but it's likely they will be called as witnesses during the case which is expected to last several weeks.

Melody Maker 16/03/1991