In [case], the plaintiff steamboat company contracted to place their steamboat The Cynthia at the disposal of the defendant on 28 June 1902, 'for the purpose of viewing the Naval Review and for a day's cruise round the fleet; also on Sunday 29 June 1902, for a similar purpose'. The Cynthia was fitted out for the trip but, on 25 June, the postponement of the Review was announced. The plaintiff telegraphed the defendant: 'What about Cynthia? She is ready to start at six tomorrow. Waiting cash.' There was no reply from the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action for damages for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not discharged from his obligations under the contract by the postponement of the Naval Review because: (a) the object in hiring the vessel was the defendant's alone and of no concern to the plaintiff; and (b) the viewing of the Naval Review was not the foundation of the contract as they could still have cruised around the fleet.
Answer
Herne Bay Steamboat Co Ltd v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683
Tags
#contract #frustration #law
Question
In [case], the plaintiff steamboat company contracted to place their steamboat The Cynthia at the disposal of the defendant on 28 June 1902, 'for the purpose of viewing the Naval Review and for a day's cruise round the fleet; also on Sunday 29 June 1902, for a similar purpose'. The Cynthia was fitted out for the trip but, on 25 June, the postponement of the Review was announced. The plaintiff telegraphed the defendant: 'What about Cynthia? She is ready to start at six tomorrow. Waiting cash.' There was no reply from the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action for damages for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not discharged from his obligations under the contract by the postponement of the Naval Review because: (a) the object in hiring the vessel was the defendant's alone and of no concern to the plaintiff; and (b) the viewing of the Naval Review was not the foundation of the contract as they could still have cruised around the fleet.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #frustration #law
Question
In [case], the plaintiff steamboat company contracted to place their steamboat The Cynthia at the disposal of the defendant on 28 June 1902, 'for the purpose of viewing the Naval Review and for a day's cruise round the fleet; also on Sunday 29 June 1902, for a similar purpose'. The Cynthia was fitted out for the trip but, on 25 June, the postponement of the Review was announced. The plaintiff telegraphed the defendant: 'What about Cynthia? She is ready to start at six tomorrow. Waiting cash.' There was no reply from the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action for damages for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not discharged from his obligations under the contract by the postponement of the Naval Review because: (a) the object in hiring the vessel was the defendant's alone and of no concern to the plaintiff; and (b) the viewing of the Naval Review was not the foundation of the contract as they could still have cruised around the fleet.
Answer
Herne Bay Steamboat Co Ltd v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Herne Bay Steamboat Co Ltd v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683, the plaintiff steamboat company contracted to place their steamboat The Cynthia at the disposal of the defendant on 28 June 1902, 'for the purpose of viewing the Naval Review and for a
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.