KRELL V. HENRY
[1903] 2 KB 740
Krell v. Henry is the English case law which established the doctrine of frustration. It is also known as the “Coronation Case” as it arose from the coronation ceremony of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra in 1902.
FACTS: Henry wants to see the coronation ceremony of the king and for this purpose, he asked Paul Krell to lent him his house from whose window coronation ceremony could be seen. Plaintiff and defendant entered into the contract stating that Henry would be able to use Paul’s flat for two days at seventy-five pounds out of which twenty-five pounds paid at that time only and rest fifty pounds will be paid later. The contract, however, did not have any express term as “coronation” in it. Coronation didn’t happen as the king fell ill. Henry refused to pay rest of the amount and claimed his twenty-five pounds back. Paul Krell filed the case against Henry stating that it was the breach of contract.
The lower court ordered in the favour of defendant and hence the Plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE:
Judgement:
In the first judgement, the court held that there was an implied condition in the contract, using Taylor v. Caldwell and The Moorcock, the court allowed the defendant for both the claim and counterclaim.
Lord Justice Vaughan Williams passed the order in favour of the defendant. The defendant was exempted of his performance as the basis of the contract got frustrated. It was explicit that the defendant wanted to see the coronation ceremony and both the parties duly understood this too and considered it as the grounds of contract. Purpose of the contract was to view the coronation.
Performance of the contract could not be considered impossible since the defendant could stay in that room even if the coronation ceremony got cancelled. But he didn’t make the use of that room and hence didn’t receive any benefits from the same. On this basis, he should exempt from the obligation to pay rest of the amount.
Parol evidence is applicable in this case as the subject of the contract, which was the flat at rent to see coronation ceremony and was known and admitted by both parties, got frustrated by the non-occurrence of the ceremony. Therefore, the defendant was held exempted from performing the contract and has also allowed to take back the amount which he had given earlier. Plaintiff’s plea was dismissed.
DISCUSSION: The doctrine of frustration in contracts law came from this case(coronation case). The doctrine of frustration of performance states “any act which was to be performed after the contract is made becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such an act which becomes impossible or unlawful will become void.”
