Following the cancellation of the coronation, and of the naval review, the defendants refused payment, stating the contract was frustrated in purpose.
Whilst at first instance the defendant succeeded in this argument, it was reversed by the Court of Appeal, who deemed the contract was not frustrated, and the balance in full was due to the plaintiff.
However, it can be explained by reference to the agreement the parties reached; the hiring was not merely to witness the naval review, but also for a cruise around the fleet.
I come to this conclusion the more readily because the object of the voyage is not limited to the naval review, but also extends to a cruise round the fleet.
It is true that in the event which happened the object of the voyage became limited, but, in my opinion, that was the risk of the defendant whose venture the taking the passengers was.