Coronation cases
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Coronation cases were a group of appellate opinions in English law cases, all arising out of contracts that had been made for accommodation for viewing the celebrations surrounding the coronation 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. The king fell ill with an abscess of the abdominal 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.
In general, the contracts were voided on the ground of frustration of purpose. Certain contracts which did not mention that the purpose was to view the coronation festivities were upheld, however.
List of cases
The cases included:
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 K.B. 740 (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 the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943)
Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 K.B. 683 (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 of mistake. 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.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Coronation cases” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Coronation, cases and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 20, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q5172235. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1943.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Coronation cases”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Coronation cases primary sources, Coronation cases archive and Coronation research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Coronation cases”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Coronation cases” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.