Legal Case Brief
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 72 LJKB 794; 52 WR 246; [1900-3] All ER Rep 20; 89 LT 328; 19 TLR 711
CONTRACT, CONTRACTUAL TERMS, FAILURE OF FUTURE EVENT, FOUNDATION OF A CONTRACT, SUBSTANCE OF CONTRACT, IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE, INFERRENCE, IMPLIED TERMS
Facts
By contract in writing of 20 June 1902, the defendant agreed to hire from the plaintiff a flat in Pall Mall on 26 June and 27 June, on which days it had been announced that the coronation processions would take place and pass along Pall Mall. The contract did not contain any express terms on the coronation processions or any other purposes for which the flat was to be hired. The defendant paid the deposit upon signing the contract. The processions, however, did not take place on the announced dates. As a result, the defendant declined to pay the balance of the agreed rent.
Issues
Was the defendant obliged to pay the rent despite the fact that the processions did not take place as planned?
Decision/Outcome
The decision was in favour of the defendant.
(1) Applying Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826,as both parties recognised that they regarded the taking place of the coronation processions on the days originally fixed as the foundation of the contract, the words of the obligation on the defendant to pay for the use of the flat for the days named were not used with reference to the possibility that the processions might not take place.
(2) The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the balance of the rent fixed by the contract.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case brief accurately states the facts, issues, and outcome of Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740, a foundational authority on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as a leading example of frustration by failure of a common purpose or foundation of the contract, alongside Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826.
Readers should be aware that the doctrine of frustration has since been developed and partially codified. The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 governs the financial consequences when a contract is frustrated, providing for recovery of money paid and, in certain circumstances, compensation for valuable benefits conferred. This Act would apply to the type of situation described in Krell v Henry today and is an important development not addressed in the article. The article also does not mention that the scope of Krell v Henry was distinguished and arguably narrowed by the House of Lords in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696, which clarified that frustration requires the contract to have become a radically different thing from what was undertaken, and that courts apply the doctrine strictly. Students researching this area should also be aware of Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683, decided at the same time, where the Court of Appeal declined to find frustration on similar coronation-related facts, illustrating that the doctrine’s application is highly fact-sensitive. These limitations aside, the core legal principle described in the article remains accurate.
