Want to make creations as awesome as this one?

Transcript

Frustration

Frustation on purpose in English contract law with Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 & Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683

START

PRESENTATION

  • The doctrine of frustration of purpose originated in cases called “coronation cases”.
  • The frustration of purpose : un unexpected and out of control event after the formation of the contract.
  • The event : makes it impossible to fulfill the contract or transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different obligation from the one taken at the formation
  • Impossibility : concerns the duties specified in the contract ≠ frustration of purpose concerns the reason a party entered into the contract.

Introduction

The coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra in 1902.

Before the Coronation the King suffered from an injury ⤍ the coronation was canceled.

It had an impact the different contracts made around the festivities of the coronation.

I want a place to observe the coronation’s procession of the new King on 26 and 27 June

M. Henry

I can rent you my apartment, you will have an excellent view of the procession from the room.

M. Krell

Facts

Facts

Krell v. Henry

Henry paid a deposit of £25 to be sure that he could stay in the flat. The letter also said that he would pay £50 to complete the final price of £75 once he arrived at the place.


On June 24th the King got sick so the coronation was postponed so Henry refused to pay the remaining balance of £50 because the contract lost its purpose.

I'd like to go on a day's cruise and I want to attend the naval review, at which the King was supposed to appear

M. Hutton

We can do this on the dates that suit you, 28 and 29 June

Herne Bay Steamboat Co

Facts

Facts

Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton

The naval review was canceled due to the King’s illness so the defendant did not use the steamship and refused to pay.

The Steamship considered that Mr Hutton had to pay because the contract was not only about the naval review. The contract contains 2 objects

  • Take the passengers to view the Naval Review which was part of King Edward VII's coronation celebrations.
  • And a day’s cruise around the fleet.

Both cases ended up in the English courts

Procedure

M. Hutton

Company

M. Henry

Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton

  • The Steamship Cynthia sued Mr Hutton because they wanted to recover a part of the rent that the defendant owed them

Plaintiff

Defendant

Plaintiff

Procedure

Defendant

  • Krell brought suit against Henry to recover the remaining balance of £50, and Henry countersued to recover his deposit in the amount of £25.be

Krell v. Henry

M. Krell

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetuer adipiscing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetuer adipiscing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetuer adipiscing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetuer adipiscing

Decision

Win

Loose

Henry

Krell

Krell lost in the Trial Court, he appealed in front of the Court of Appeal who dismissed the plaintiff’s and confirmed the judgment. The trial court held that the postponement of the coronation defeated the purpose of the contract, which was to license the flat for the purpose of viewing the coronation.

The court said

Decision

Win

Loose

Herne Bay Steamboat Co

Hutton

The court said

The court considered that the contract was not only about the naval review but was also about “a day’s cruise around the fleet”. The cancellation of an event that the contract is made for, does not frustrate the contract when the contract is not unique to the event. for the Court the second purpose was still entirely possible

The cases deal with the consequences of the cancellation of the procession due to the King’s illness. The two decisions can be explained by the difference of the agreements :


  • Krell v. Henry : the only reason why Henry wanted to rent the flat was to attend the procession and it was clear between the two parties of the contract.

  • Steamboat : the boat was rented for 2 reasons and only one of them was unrealisable. The rent of the ship was made to witness the naval review and for a cruise

Conclusion : when a part of the contract can still be honored, the fact that one of the purposes had to be canceled does not discharge the parties from further performance.

COMPARISON

TEAM

Rousseau

Tardini

Le douairon

Alexandrine

Elise

Marie

Thanks!