KRELL VS HENRY

[1903] 2 KB 740
COURT OF APPEAL VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, ROMER
AND STIRLING LJJ.
 CORONATION CASES
The Coronation Cases are a landmark in the impossibility of performance of
contract.
The circumstances which gave rise to the Coronation Cases were very
special. The Coronation of King Edward VII was be marked by certain
celebrations, chief among which were the coronation procession itself and a
naval review at Spithead. anticipation of these events many contracts had
been made for the hire of vessels to see the naval review. Two days before
dates fixed for the procession and review they were cancel owing to the
illness of the King.

See McElory and Williams, The Coronation Cases. Jstor.

 FACTS OF THE CASE
Plaintiff and Defendant signed a contract for Defendant to rent a flat
in order to watch the King’s coronation.

However, the contract did not have an express reference to the

coronation.

But the coronation did not take place due to the ill health of the King,
therefore, the defendant refused to pay the remaining consideration.

Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover the remaining

rent money. However, Defendant refused and filed a counter-claim
asking for the refund of 25 Pounds previously paid.

The lower court ruled in the favour of the defendant, stating that
there was an implied contract between the parties that the purpose
of renting the place was to see the coronation.

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, Plaintiff filed an

appeal.
 ISSUES
Whether the defendant was obliged to pay the rent
despite the fact that procession did not take place ?
JUDEGEMENT
In the appellate court, Lord
Justice Vaughan Williams
upheld the lower court’s
judegement and gave the
judegement in favour of the
defendant stating that he is
excused from the performance
of his part as the purpose of the
contract has been frustrated.
The court of appeal relied on the principle laid down in
Taylor Vs Caldwell. However, distinguished on the basis of
“Supervening Impossibility of the fulfillment of the
purpose for with which the contract was made” and
“Supervening impossibility of performance”
CASES REFERED
Taylor Vs Caldwell
Knowles Vs Bovill
 FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT POSITION IN INDIA

In India also, impossibility does not mean merely physical impossibility to perform the
contract, it also includes situations where the performance of the contract may not be
literally impossible, but because of change circumstances, the performance would not
fulfil the object which the parties had in mind.
The frustration of the Contract is covered by section 56 of the Indian contract act. it says:
“an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void”

It is based on the maxim “les non cogit impossibilia” which means “the law does not
compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform.”