Final answer:
The question refers to Krell v Henry, a legal case involving the doctrine of frustration in contract law. The case addressed the cancellation of King Edward VII's coronation, which rendered a contract for a flat rental void due to the unforeseen cancellation making the underlying purpose of the contract impossible to fulfill. It's a cornerstone case in English law for understanding frustration of purpose in contracts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question 'What is the question Futility: Krell v Henry about?' refers to a legal case concerning the doctrine of frustration in contract law. The case of Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 is about a contract that became impossible to perform due to unforeseen circumstances, resulting in a legal debate on whether the person who could not fulfill the contract should be penalized.
In the case, the defendant, Henry, rented a flat from the plaintiff, Krell, to watch the coronation procession of King Edward VII. However, the coronation was canceled, making the purpose of renting the flat pointless. The court held that the contract was frustrated, which means that due to no fault of either party, the contract could not be performed because the circumstances that the contract was based upon had fundamentally changed. Thus, Henry was not liable for the rent expenses as the essential purpose of the contract was thwarted by the cancellation of the event.
This case is a landmark decision in English contract law, and it's often studied as it helps to illustrate the limits of contract enforcement and the concept of frustration in situations where unforeseen events render the performance of a contract impossible. Students often refer to this case when learning about the role that circumstances play in determining whether a contract can be rendered null and void due to frustration of its purpose.