Chandler v Webster

Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 is an English contract law case, concerning frustration. It is one of the many coronation cases, which appeared in the courts after King Edward VII fell ill and his coronation was postponed.

Chandler v Webster
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citation(s)[1904] 1 KB 493
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Collins MR, Romer LJ and Mathew LJ
Keywords
Frustration

Facts

Mr Webster agreed to let Mr Chandler a room on Pall Mall to watch the King's coronation on June 26 1902 for £141 15s. It was understood between the parties that the money for the room should be paid before the procession. Mr Chandler had in fact hired the room not for himself, but for a customer. Ultimately the customer did not want the room, since a relative had died. On June 10 Mr Chandler wrote to Mr Webster saying,

“I beg to confirm my purchase of the first-floor room of the Electric Lighting Board at 7, Pall Mall, to view the procession on Thursday, June 26, for the sum of £141, 15s., which amount is now due. I shall be obliged if you will take the room on sale, and I authorize you to sell separate seats in the room, for which I will erect a stand. If the seats thus sold in the ordinary way of business do not realize the above amount by June 26, I agree to pay you the balance to make up such amount of £141, 15s.”

Mr Chandler paid £100 on 19 June but then the King fell ill. The question was whether the £100 could be recovered by Mr Chandler, or whether Mr Webster could demand the balance.

Judgment

High Court

Wright J held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the 100l. which he had paid, and that, on the construction of the letter of June 10, it appeared that the balance was not payable until after the procession, and consequently the defendant was not entitled to recover on the counter-claim.

Court of Appeal

Lord Collins MR, Romer LJ and Mathew LJ held that Mr Chandler was not entitled to recover his damages before the procession became impossible.

gollark: Replace "socialist", "trade unionist", "Jew" etc with "person who does X, Y, Z".
gollark: ``` First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.```
gollark: Starscream says that's banned. I think it *might* be under creative (mis)interpretations. TJ09 hasn't explicitly specified.
gollark: What about "offer I accidentally declined"?
gollark: You mean the rules as posited by TJ09 or random moderators?

See also

Notes
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.