Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683

Victor

http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/discharge-cases.php

Was there a similar case, again involving a cancelled naval review (the same one?), but which involved a hotel room booking which was cancelled. The case is cited as an example of a contract discharged by an outside influence.

Tom Young

Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 470, the plaintiff let his flat to the defendant in order to allow him to view the coronation procession of Edward VII.

The defendant paid a £25 deposit and was expected to pay a further £50 on the morning of the ceremony. On the morning of the ceremony, the coronation was cancelled due to the King being ill. Nonetheless the plaintiff sued for the outstanding sum of £50. The court was of the opinion that the purpose for which the room was wanted the procession of King Edward VII went to the root of the contract and that the cancellation of this event had led to the contract being frustrated.

shipwreck

Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 KB 740

This is the 'coronation case' that relates to the hotel booking.

Procrastastudy

Yes its Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740

Procrastastudy

GRRR!!!! Too slow The Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton case isnt frustrations as far as I know as the guy could still go and look at the ships. Know as the coranation or procession cases I think.

shipwreck

Correct. The contract is not frustrated because despite not seeing the King, they could still cruise around in the boat. Unlike Krell where they had hired the room to get a view of the Pall Mall.

Tom Young

Yes, it is a contrasting case. The defendant in that case had hired a steamboat in order to view the Naval Review (which was celebrating the coronation of King Edward VII) and to sail around the fleet. The Naval Review was cancelled due to the illness of the King. The court held that the contract was still enforceable as the defendant could still sail around the fleet.

Both cases arise and are lectured in the category of Frustration of Purpose in Contract Law and arise under Discharge of Contracts.

McCrack

Reading this has brought back contract memories and gives me a shudder

Tom Young

My favourite subject ...

Victor

So, Irish Rail (and other operators) run special trains / buses: http://www.irishrail.ie/cat_offers.jsp?p=118&n=144&ci=4

Some are pure speculative ventures by the transport operator. Some others, no doubt, are run in conjunction with the event organisers, where a special fare is offered, possibly under contract with the event organiser or groups of attendees. I imagine the organiser / group is incentivised to fill the train. Notably, the tickets tend to be sold individually or for small groups - no different from ordinary train fares.

It other cases, groups may approach a transport operator and hire the whole train / coach / bus and it is for them to get the passengers to contribute and to take any profit or suffer any loss.

While when there is a formal contract between a group and an operator, one presumes such contracts allow for cancellations, what happens everyone else. If Leitrim v Carlow in the All Ireland Final is postponed, how do Herne Bay and Krell apply to the various permutations? Sure, the main objective is to go to the event, but there are other things to be doing on a trip. However, some may still want to go on a particular special service, regardless of the event cancellation.

Procrastastudy

I, for what its worth, would say that fits Krell pretty well. There's pleanty to do in London but the main event was canceled. Money paid up until the cancelation would remain with the party that possesed it. (Contract falling at the point of frustration.) It's obviously going to be more complicated than that given the types of contract but just taking basic principles it fits.

EDIT oh sorry you scenario also goes into privity which scares me!

jblack

OTTOMH

Such contracts do not generally create privity issues since the package holiday cases such as Jarvis v Swan Tours. Commercial contracts with purported benefits for 3P allow that term conferring such benefit to be enforced by the 3P (The Albacruz).

Not too sure of the Irish legislation but in E/W it's the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 that governs such arrangements, although this can be contracted out of.

As for frustration, as any practitioner will tell you it's the "hardly ever doctrine". Two building cases mark it's high water and low water mark:

There's Bush v Whitehaven which was then blown out of the water by Davis v Fareham UDC.

Procrastastudy

I know there is no legislation in Ireland regarding Frustration - the E&W (pos UK) legislation came about becuase of WWII. Is there privity legislation here - I really should go and look that up.

SeanJ09

Studying this topic now.
Ok, so lets assume I want to go to Dublin to view a concert. I decide to hire a bus to take myself and a group to Dublin to go to this match. The bus company agrees to hire a bus to take us to the match. A deposit of £100 had to be paid at once and the balance was due when the journey began. On the day of the concert, before the bus leaves, we learn it has been cancelled. I tell the bus company that we would not be going to Dublin and would like our deposit back. He refuses and wants the rest of the money due paid up also saying he is still wiling to drive to Dublin, where we could enjoy the scenery etc...
Can I get the deposit back and or do I have to pay the amount due?
After reading the Krell and Herne cases, I think I do have to pay the rest due right? Because the purpose of the contract as far as the bus company was concerned was go to Dublin?