Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton
A contract is not frustrated if its purpose is only partly defeated and performance still has some value.
Facts
As part of the coronation celebrations, a naval review of the fleet by the King was planned at Spithead. Mr Hutton hired a steamboat, the Cynthia, from the Herne Bay Steam Boat Company for two days, for the purpose of viewing the naval review and for a day's cruise round the fleet. When the King fell ill, the naval review was cancelled, but the fleet remained at Spithead. Mr Hutton did not use the boat and refused to pay the balance of the hire, and the company sued.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the contract was not frustrated, so Mr Hutton was liable for the balance, less the profit the company had made by using the boat for other purposes. The naval review was not the foundation of the contract for both parties: it was Mr Hutton's purpose in hiring the boat, but not the shipowner's, and in any event the boat could still have been used to cruise round the fleet, which remained in place. The case is usually contrasted with Krell v Henry.
Related cases on frustration
- Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch)
- Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696
- Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage and Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2007] EWCA Civ 547, [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 517
- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
- Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226
- J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
- Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874) LR 10 CP 125
- Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
