|
''Krell v Henry'' () 2 KB 740 is an English case which sets forth the doctrine of frustration of purpose in contract law. It is one of a group of cases known as the "coronation cases" which arose from events surrounding the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra in 1902. ==Facts== The defendant, CS Henry, agreed by contract on 20 June 1902, to rent a flat located at 56A Pall Mall from the plaintiff, Paul Krell, for the purpose of watching the coronation procession of Edward VII scheduled for 26 and 27 June. The housekeeper of the premises informed Henry that he would have an excellent view of the procession from the room. Desiring to secure the rental of Krell's flat for the purpose of observing the coronation procession, Henry wrote the following letter to Krell's solicitor: I am in receipt of yours of the 18th instant, inclosing form of agreement for the suite of chambers on the third floor at 56A, Pall Mall, which I have agreed to take for the two days, the 26th and 27th instant, for the sum of 75l. For reasons given you I cannot enter into the agreement, but as arranged over the telephone I inclose herewith cheque for 25l. as deposit, and will thank you to confirm to me that I shall have the entire use of these rooms during the days (not the nights) of the 26th and 27th instant. You may rely that every care will be taken of the premises and their contents. On the 24th inst. I will pay the balance, viz., 50l., to complete the 75l. agreed upon. For the purpose of accepting Henry's offer to rent the flat, on the same day the defendant received the following reply from the plaintiff's solicitor: I am in receipt of your letter of to-day's date inclosing cheque for 25l. deposit on your agreeing to take Mr. Krell's chambers on the third floor at 56A, Pall Mall for the two days, The parties agreed on a price of £75, but nowhere in their written correspondence did either of them explicitly mention the coronation ceremony. Henry paid a deposit of £25 to Krell for the use of the flat, but when the procession did not take place on the days originally set (on the grounds of the King’s illness), Henry refused to pay the remaining £50. Krell brought suit against Henry to recover the remaining balance of £50, and Henry countersued to recover his deposit in the amount of £25. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Krell v Henry」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|