## Facts

- The defendant, through agents, agreed to let the plaintiff a room overlooking the intended coronation procession route for the specific purpose of viewing the procession on June 26, 1902.
- At about 11:00 a.m. on June 24, 1902, the plaintiff made a verbal agreement and paid £100 by cheque to secure the room.
- At about 10:00 a.m. on June 24, 1902—before the agreement—the decision had already been made to operate on the King, making the planned procession impossible.
- Neither party knew of the King’s condition or the prior decision at the time of contracting.
- The plaintiff sued to recover the £100 on the ground that both parties shared a fundamental mistake about an existing state of affairs.

## Issues

1. Whether a contract is void for common mistake when, at the time of contracting, an unknown existing fact has already made the agreed purpose impossible and the mistake goes to the root of the bargain.
2. If the contract is void, whether the payer is entitled to restitution of money paid under the mistake.

## Decision

- The court held the agreement was void for common mistake.
- The mistake concerned an existing fact at contract formation: the procession had already become impossible.
- The shared assumption that the procession remained possible went to the whole root of the agreement, which was made solely for viewing the procession.
- The plaintiff was entitled to recover the £100 paid.

## Legal Principles

- A contract is void where both parties contract under a common mistake as to an existing fact that makes performance impossible and destroys the basis of the agreement.
- A shared mistake “going to the whole root of the matter” prevents a binding contract from arising (void ab initio).
- Where an agreement is void for common mistake, money paid under the mistaken assumption is recoverable in restitution.
- Where the impossibility pre-dates contract formation, the analysis is common mistake rather than discharge for a later supervening event.

## Conclusion

Because the coronation procession was already impossible when the parties contracted and both were unaware of that fact, their shared mistaken assumption defeated the basis of the bargain, rendering the contract void and requiring repayment of the £100.


Griffith v. Brymer, (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434 (K.B.)