The Coronation Cases—II
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1941.tb00877.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1941 |
| Date | 01 July 1941 |
| Author | R. G. McElroy,Glanville Williams |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOl.
v
JULY,
1941
No.
I
THE
CORONATION
CASES-I1
0
far we have considered only those Coronation Cases within
Group
I
of the classification iven in the previous article.1
These were cases in which an action had been brought by one
party claiming the return of money paid on the ground that, as
performance by the other party had become impossible, there
had been a total failure
of
consideration for the payment made.
The principal case of the group is
Chandler
v.
Webster
(1go4).~
In that case the plaintiff had agreed to hire
a
room from the
defendant for the sum of
L141
in order to view the Coronation
procession.
He
had paid
LIOO
and was due to pay the balance
when it was announced that the Coronation procession was can-
celled. The plaintiff brought an action for moneys had and received
claiming the return of the
LIOO
on the ground that the considera-
tion for the payment had wholly failed. The Court of Appeal
(Collins,
M.R.,
Romer and Mathew,
L.
J
J.)
held that not only
could the plaintiff not obthin a refund of the
fl~oo,
but he was
bound to pay the balance of
L41.
In reaching this conclusion the Court followed the reasoning
of
two earlier Coronation Cases in which similar decisions had
been given. In
Blakeley
v.
Muller
G
CO.,~
a
Divisional Court
consisting of Lord Alverstone,
C.
J.,
Wills and Channell,
J
J.
,
had
S
It
is now time to consider t
t
ose falling within Group 11.
1
(1941) 4
Modern Law Review,
241
at
245.
*
[I9041
I
K.B.
493.
a
[I9031
z
K.B.
760,
n.
See also
Kvell
v.
Henry,
[I9031
z
K.B.,
740,
where,
in view of
Blakeley
v.
Muller
&
Co.,
the hirer
of
the
rooms
abandoned a counter-
claim for the return
of
a deposit.
2
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
July,
1941
held that
a
person who had paid for seats on
a
stand from which
a
view of the procession was to have been obtained could not
recover his money when the procession was cancelled. This
decision had been approved and its reasoning applied in
Civil
Service CO-OP. Socy.
v.
General Steam Navigation CO.,~
where the
Court of Appeal (Lord Halsbury, L.C., Lord Alverstone, C.
J.,
and
Cozens-Hardy,
L.
J.)
held that
;GI,~oo
paid for the hire of
a
ship
to see the Naval Review could not be recovered when the Review
was cancelled.
These decisions established
a
rule of English law which
is
generally acknowledged to be unjust.
Its
abolition has been
recommended by the Law Revision Committee? but their Report
has
not yet been acted upon, and notwithstanding the labours of
the Committee there
is
still
room for an inquiry into the authority
and
scope
of the rule.
That
it
was not beyond the power of the common law to deal
with
the situation when
Chandler
v.
Webster
came before the
Courts is plain from the earlier case of
Knowles
v.
Bovill.6
In this
case, which was mentioned in the previous article,’
it
was held
that
a
person who had paid
L150
for the use of
a
patent which
the patentee was about to take out could recover the
jG150
in
an action for moneys had and received when the patentee died
before making the application for the patent. The Court of
Exchequer (Martin, Bramwell, Pigott and Cleasby,
BB.)
held
unanimously that the plaintiff could recover on the ground that
the consideration had totally failed! Bramwell, B., added, “Can
anything be more obviously just and reasonable? Why should
the contractor’s death be
a
benefit to his estate, and inflict
a
loss
on
the other party?
”O
It
is
noteworthy that this case was decided in
1870
and that
both
Taylor
v.
CaldweU
and
A++leby
v.
Myers
(which
will
be
mentioned shortly) were cited in argument. The Court of
Ex-
chequer found nothing in those cases to preclude recovery
by
the
4
[1903]
2
K.B.
756.
In this case, however,
as
in
Lumsden
v.
Barton
C
Co.
(IF),
19
T.L.R.
53,
it is possible to contend that there was
no
total failure of
consideration, for the defendants had sustained a detriment
in
partial per-
formance of the contract
;
but the law relating to,partial failure of consideration
is
in
a state of obscurity. See Glanville Williams. Partial Performance of Entire
Contracts,”
to
be
published shortly
in
the
Law
Quavtevly
Review.
6
Seventh Interim Report, Cmd.
6009
of
1939.
6
(1870)
22
L.T.
70.
Cp.
Scuvjeki
v.
Gowland
(1805),
6
East
241.
7
(1941) 4
Modem Law Review.
at
247.
6
It may
be
mentioned that while this particular remedy
is
one belonging
pemdiarly to the common law, the underlying principle is the same
as
that
on
which
recovery
is
based
in
the Civil law.
Cp.
per
Lord
President Inglis
in
Watson
v.
Skankland
(1871),
10
M.
142
at
152.
See also
Law
Revision
Committee’s
Report
(cit.
sup.),
Appendix
A.
*
22
L.T.,
at
71.
To continue reading
Request your trial