Knowing that she was breaching her contract with Warner Bros., she fled to Canada to avoid legal papers being served on her in the United States.

[2] She later recalled the opening statement of the barrister, Sir Patrick Hastings KC, who represented Warner Bros. that urged the court to "come to the conclusion that this is rather a naughty young lady, and that what she wants is more money".

Davis explained her viewpoint to a journalist: "I knew that, if I continued to appear in any more mediocre pictures, I would have no career left worth fighting for.

"[4] Her counsel presented the complaints – that she could be suspended without pay for refusing a part, with the period of suspension added to her contract, that she could be called upon to play any part within her abilities, regardless of her personal beliefs, that she could be required to support a political party against her beliefs, and that her image and likeness could be displayed in any manner deemed applicable by the studio.

The court noted that a similar contract had been upheld in Gaumont-British Picture Corporation v Alexander [1936] 2 All ER 1686.

Having decided that the court affirmed it usual practice - that it would not order specific performance of a personal service.

The court rejected the argument that, because she could never earn as much doing anything else, this effectively forced her to perform her contract indirectly and was thus contrary to the law.