H.B STEAMBOAT vs. HUTTON

Case study presented by: Aishwarya MunjalSection-A

U-1407Under the guidance of Ms. Shruti Garg

THE CASE

A company agreed to let out a boat to H, (a) for viewing a naval review on the occasion of

coronation of King Edward VII, and (b) to sail around the fleet. Due to illness of the King, the

naval review was later cancelled but the fleet was assembled. Held, the contract was not discharged because the holding of the review was not the sole bases of the contract. To sail round the fleet, which formed an equally basic object of the contract was

still capable of attainment.

FACTS

Herne Bay Steamboat vs. Hutton case took place in 1903 in United Kingdom.

The defendant, Mr Hutton, contracted to hire a steamship, named Cynthia, on June 28 and 29, 1902. He paid  £50 as deposit and rest he would pay when he took the possession of the ship.  On June 25 the review was officially cancelled although the fleet remained 

On hearing of the cancellation the Herne Bay Steam Boat Co wired to Hutton and requested payment of the remaining £200. Hutton did not reply.

On June 29 Hutton informed the Herne Bay Steam Boat Co that since the review had been cancelled, he did not require the use of the ship, and that therefore he was not going to pay the balance of £200 nor was he going to have anything more to do with the agreement. 

MORE FACTS

On June 29 Hutton informed the Herne Bay Steam Boat Co that since the review had been cancelled, he did not require the use of the ship, and that therefore he was not going to pay the balance of £200 nor was he going to have anything more to do with the

agreement.  On June 29 Hutton informed the Herne Bay Steam Boat Co that

since the review had been cancelled, he did not require the use of the ship, and that therefore he was not going to pay the balance of £200 nor was he going to have anything more to do with the

agreement. 

FAILURE OF ONE OF THE OBJECTS

When a contract is entered into for several objects, the failure of one of the objects does not discharge the contract.

This is also known as frustration of purpose.

JUDGEMENT In the first instance, the defendant succeeded in

their argument which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal deemed that contract was not frustrated and the balance was to be paid to the plaintiff.

The objective was not only to view the coronation but also to sail around the fleet, hence the contract was not considered to be discharged.

If the sole purpose would have been the Coronation and later it would have been cancelled, the verdict would have been different.