Krell v. Henry - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Contracts II

Class 24

Krell v. Henry Court: Court of King’s Bench (1903)

Facts: Krell (PL) sued Henry (DF) for 75£, for which the DF had agreed to hire a flat at 56A, Pall Mall on the days of June 26 and 27, for the purposes of viewing the coronation of His Majesty. The DF denied his liability.

Issues: Whether the PL can be held liable for damages under the contract when the purpose for the contract had not occurred.

Procedural History: The lower court held that there was an implied condition in the contract that the procession should take place and gave judgment for the DF on the claim. PL appeals.

Judgement: Affirmed.

Reasoning: Krell is essentially an extension of Taylor v. Caldwell. In this instance the essence of the contract, it’s purpose (viewing the coronation) was destroyed. The essence of the contract is determined by the intent of the parties. The contract is valid; however, its performance is excused. It is important to note that this is distinct from the impossibility defense because the apartment is still able to be rented, but the purpose for the contract has died. NOTE: THE CONTRACT EQUATES TO $10,000-$15,000 IN TODAY’S MONEY

Rules: Performance under the contract will be excused when the purpose for performing the contract (as determined by the intent of the parties at the time of contract) has died....