Question
However, in the academic literature, there is a rival explanation that hinges, not on the damage to the bargain, but on the status of the contractors. Quite simply, in the Herne Bay Steamboat case, Hutton was a Southampton businessman who contracted for the hire of The Cynthia as [...]; he was planning to take paying customers around the fleet; the contractual purpose was purely for profit. The position in Krell v Henry was quite different. Henry did not hire the room for business reasons; he wanted it in order to view the coronation procession. From a 21st century perspective, the reason for the different, and seemingly contradictory, outcomes in the two cases is glaringly obvious. The Herne Bay Steamboat case involves a business-to-business contract where the reasonable expectation is that the hirer takes the risk that there might not be as much profit in the venture as he hoped for. By contrast, in Krell v Henry, the deal is more akin to a consumer contract where the consumer-hirer can reasonably expect to enjoy a heightened level of protection against the unanticipated events that occurred.