판결 이유
Frustration does not apply where the contract can still be performed, even if the main purpose has been partially defeated. The doctrine is limited to cases where the entire foundation of the contract has been destroyed.
사실관계
Hutton hired a steamboat to take passengers to see the naval review at Spithead for the coronation of Edward VII. The review was cancelled because the King was ill. Hutton refused to pay, arguing the contract was frustrated.
판결 요약
The Court of Appeal held that the contract was not frustrated. The review was not the sole foundation of the contract — the boat could still have been used for a cruise to see the fleet. Contrasted with Krell v Henry where the coronation procession was the entire foundation of the contract.
주요 인용문
"The ship was still available, and Hutton could have used it for any other purpose. The happening of the naval review was not the basis of the contract."
— Stirling LJ
후속 처리
Consistently contrasted with Krell v Henry [1903] as illustrating the limits of frustration.