Elliott v Crutchley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1906 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Contract - Performance Impossible - Payment made “on Account of” Contract - Express Provision in the Event of no Expense being incurred.
A caterer agreed to supply refreshments at a fixed price to the respondents on the occasion of a naval review to be held on a named day, “300l. to be paid to the caterer on account of the refreshments on the Monday previous to the review day,” it being expressly stipulated that in the event of the cancellation of the review before any expense was incurred by the caterer there should be no liability on the respondents. A few days before the named day it was known that the review would not be held. The caterer had spent about 20l. in crockery, &c., but incurred no expense in providing refreshments. The caterer having sued the respondents upon a cheque for 300l. given by them to him in advance in accordance with the contract:—
Held, that upon the true construction of this particular contract the respondents were not liable in respect of refreshments, and could not be sued upon the cheque.
IN March, 1902, the appellant, a caterer, offered in writing to the respondents to supply refreshments at a fixed price to the passengers on board a steamer on the occasion of the naval review to be held on June 28 in connection with the King's Coronation; 300l. to be paid to the appellant on account of the refreshments on the Monday before the review day. These terms were accepted by a letter from the respondents, the postscript of which said, “It is of course understood that in the event of the cancellation of the review before any expense is incurred by the caterer there shall be no liability on our side.” The appellant spent about 20l. for crockery, knives and forks, and tickets, but incurred no expense in providing refreshments. On June 23 the respondents sent the appellant a cheque for 300l. On June 24 it was known that owing to the King's illness the review would be cancelled. Payment of the cheque having been stopped the appellant sued the respondents upon it. Ridley J. gave judgment for the respondentsF1, and this decision was affirmedF2 by the Court of Appeal (Collins M.R., Romer and Mathew L.JJ.).
Witt, K.C., and A. P. Poley, for the appellant, cited the cases referred to in the Court below, and contended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Company
...Steam Navigation Co.ELR, [1903] 2 K. B. 756; Chandler v. WebsterELR, [1904] 1 K. B. 493; Elliott v. CrutchleyELRELR, [1904] 1 K. B. 565, [1906] A. C. 7. 3 Inst. I. vii. 4 Ibid., I. xiv. 7. 5 Ogilvy v. Hume, (1683) 2 Br. Supp. 34; Rule v. ReidUNK, (1707) M. 6364; Cutler v. LittletonUNK, (171......
-
Taylor and Another against Caldwell and Another
...688. (a) See note (b), p. 824. ^7'W nfi ,-7/e. 810 TAYLOR V. CALDWFT.L 3 B. * S. til, Crutchley, [1903] 2 K. B. 479; [1904] 1 K. B. 565; [1906] A. C. 7. Distinguished, Herne Bay Steamboat Company v. Button, [1903] 2 K. B. 689. Applied, Krell v. Henny, [1903] 2 K. B. 740. Discussed, Blakeley......
-
Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA v Rals International Pte Ltd
...on the bill. Where there is a total failure of consideration, the drawer has no liability on the bill at all: see Elliott v Crutchley [1906] AC 7. Where there is a quantified partial failure of consideration, the drawer has a defence to a claim on the bill pro tanto: Nova Jersey at 720 and ......
-
Gaynor v McDyer and Another
...the amount thereof. Kenneally v. LyonsDIJR [1958] Ir. Jur. Rep. 54 overruled. Cohen v. HaleELR 3 Q.B.D. 371 and Elliott v. CrutchleyELR [1906] A.C. 7 considered. Gaynor v. McDyer LEO GAYNOR Plaintiff and ANDREW McDYER and DENIS HURLEY, Defendants (1) Supreme Court. Negotiable instruments - ......