This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Coronation cases" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(January 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

TheCoronation cases were a group of appellate opinions inEnglish law cases, all arising out ofcontracts that had been made for accommodation for viewing the celebrations surrounding thecoronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, originally scheduled for 26 June 1902. Many owners of buildings along the coronation procession route had rented their front rooms to others who hoped to guarantee themselves a view of the procession, or rented out boats from which to watch the associated naval review.^[1] The king fell ill with anabscess of theabdominal wall two days before the planned coronation and it was postponed until 9 August. The renters were not inclined to pay top prices—or pay at all—for rooms on an ordinary day.^[2]

In general, the contracts were voided on the ground offrustration of purpose. Certain contracts which did not mention that the purpose was to view the coronation festivities were upheld, however.

The cases included:

• Krell v Henry [1903] 2 K.B. 740^[3] (contract voidable on the basis of a frustrated purpose that was implied into the contract from extrinsic factors)
• Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 (neither an advance fee already paid nor the balance to be paid after the coronation were recoverable; overruled by theLaw Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943)
• Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 K.B. 683^[3] (frustration of one purpose did not void a contract also made for a different, non-frustrated purpose)
• Hobson v Pattenden & Co (1903) 19 TLR 186
• Clark v Lindsay (1903) 19 TLR 202
• Griffith v Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434 – In this matter, the parties entered into the contract after the decision had been made (but not publicized) to operate on the king. The contract was ruled to be void, not under the doctrine of frustration of purpose as in other Coronation cases, but on the grounds ofmistake. The crucial difference is that, unlike the other coronation cases where a later event made the contract fundamentally different, in this case the parties entered into the contract under the mistaken assumption of fact that the coronation would take place.

This article related to thehistory of England is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

• v
• t
• e

This article relating tolaw in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

• v
• t
• e

• 1903 in case law
• 1903 in England
• Legal history of England
• English frustration case law
• 1903 in British law
• Edward VII
• Alexandra of Denmark
• English history stubs
• United Kingdom law stubs

• Use dmy dates from April 2022
• Articles needing additional references from January 2017
• All articles needing additional references
• All stub articles