740. The defendant did not want to go through with contract when the king was ill, which postponed the coronation. The cases of Krell v Henry 1 and Herne Bay Steam Boat Company v Hutton 2 concern the law of frustration: whether or not a contract should be frustrated if the purpose for its existence is no longer present, due to an intervening event. 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. Henry, for £50, the balance of a sum of £75, for which the defendant had agreed to hire a flat at 56A, Pall Mall on the days of June 26 and 27, for the purpose of viewing the processions to be held in connection with the coronation of His Majesty. One of the remaining cases corresponds with the controversial Krell v Henry; there appears to be a temptation to regard frustration as the most socially utilitarian solution. Summary of Krell v. Henry Citation: 2 K.B. henry flashcards on Quizlet. In the Court of Appeal. 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. Contracts function as a means of transferring social benefit, which can be subcategorised into subjective and objective benefit. ... Extends the principle in Taylor v Caldwell that contracts may be frustrated not only if the subject matter is destroyed, but if a foundation (or assumption) on which the contract was based upon ceases to exist. Krell v Henry - W The plaintiff, Paul Krell, sued the defendant, C.S. The contract stated that the defendant would have the flat for two days for £75. 740 Appeal from a decision of Darling, J. Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v. Hutton  2 KB 683. and Stirling L.J. henry with free interactive flashcards. Krell v. Henry. From Uni Study Guides. However, the contract did not mention how Henry could use the flat specifically. Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd  EWCA Civ 8 Krell v Henry  2 KB 740 National Carriers v Panalpina  AC 675 Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co  2 KB 126 Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd  AC 724 Taylor v Caldwell  EWHC QB J1 Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH  AC 93 Internet Resources. Krell v. Henry  2 KB 740 If, despite the cancellation of principal reason for the contract, a substantial part of the contract can still be performed, the contract will not be held to be frustrated. Jump to: navigation, search. 1903 July 13, 14, 15; Aug. 11. Vaughan Williams L.J., Romer L.J. A critical analysis of theories of commercial impossibility and frustration of purpose is best undertaken in conjunction with a theoretical analysis of contract in general. Choose from 500 different sets of krell v . Krell v. Henry  2 K.B. Contract--Impossibility of Performance--Implied Condition--Necessary Inference--Surrounding Circumstances--Substance of Contract--Coronation Procession- … 740 Relevant Facts: [This matter was an English case] Henry paid to use Krell’s London flat (apartment) in order to view King Edward VII’s coronation.Per the contract, Henry was allowed to use the flat for two days for a fee of 75 pounds. Facts: The defendant wanted to use Krell’s flat to view the king's coronation. The plaintiff, Paul Krell, sued the defendant, C. S. Henry, for £50, being the balance of a sum of £75, for which the defendant had agreed to hire a flat at 56A, Pall Mall on the days of June 26 and 27, for the purpose of viewing the processions to be held in connection with the coronation of His Majesty. Krell v Henry (1903) 2 KB 740. Learn krell v . Krell v Henry  2 KB 740 is an English case which sets forth the doctrine of frustration of purpose in contract law. Krell v Henry.