A contract to hire a steam boat to view the royal review of the naval fleet at Spithead as part of the celebrations for the coronation of Edward VII was not frustrated by cancellation of the review on the King’s illness because the fleet was still at Spithead to be viewed.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that because the purposes (of seeing the review and being taken around the fleet) became impossible that did not mean the contract was frustrated. The happening of the naval review was not the foundation of the contract: ‘ . . Mr. Hutton, in hiring this vessel, had two objects in view: first, of taking people to see the naval review, and, secondly, of taking them round the fleet. Those, no doubt, were the purposes of Mr. Hutton, but it does not seem to me that because, as it is said, those purposes became impossible, it would be a very legitimate inference that the happening of the naval review was contemplated by both parties as the basis and foundation of this contract . . On the contrary, when the contract is properly regarded, I think the purpose of Mr. Hutton, whether of seeing the naval review or of going round the fleet with a party of paying guests, does not lay the foundation of the contract within the authorities.’
Romer LJ said: ‘it is a contract for the hiring of a ship by the defendant for a certain voyage, though having, no doubt, a special object, namely, to see the naval review and the fleet; but it appears to me that the object was a matter with which the defendant, as hirer of the ship, was alone concerned, and not the plaintiffs, the owners of the ship’ . . And: ‘so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the objects of the passengers on this voyage with regard to sight-seeing do not form the subject-matter or essence of this contract.’
Stirling LJ referring directly to the fact that part of the stated purpose, the ‘day’s cruise round the fleet’, had remained possible, saying: ‘It seems to me that the reference in the contract to the naval review is easily explained; it was inserted in order to define more exactly the nature of the voyage, and I am unable to treat it as being such a reference as to constitute the naval review the foundation of the contract so as to entitle either party to the benefit of the doctrine in Taylor v Caldwell. I come to this conclusion the more readily because the object of the voyage is not limited to the naval review, but also extends to a cruise round the fleet. The fleet was there, and passengers might have been found willing to go round it. It is true that in the event which happened the object of the voyage became limited, but, in my opinion, that was the risk of the defendant whose venture the taking the passengers was.’
Vaughan Williams, Stirling, Romer LJJ
[1902] 2 KB 683
Cited by:
Cited – Gamerco Sa v ICM Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd and Another QBD 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiff Spanish concert promoter, and the defendant rock group, Guns ‘n’ Roses, agreed to provide a concert at the stadium of Atetico Madrid, but shortly before it was due to take place, the stadium was deemed unfit, and its licence withdrawn. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564154
