Contract Law - Frustration

Principle	Case Name / Definition
Definition of frustration	Frustration occurs when, without fault of either party, a contratual obligation has become either impossible, illegal or radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract Lord Radcliffe in Davis v Fareham UDC HL [1956]
Original position - contract is absolute and couldn't be avoided for any reason	Paradine v Jane [1647]
Introduced the concept of frustration by using Implied terms - to excuse the parties if performance becomes impossible because of the destruction of the subject matter - a concert hall	Taylor v Caldwell [1863]
Modern view of frustration - depends on the construction of the contract	Davis v Fareham UDC [1956]
The doctrine is not to be lightly invoked (3 days out of 20 days)	The Sea Angel CA [2007]
not likely to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains	The Nema
Force Majeure Clauses	Channel Island Ferries v Sealink UK
Frustrating Events - Impossibility Destruction of concert venue	Taylor v Caldwell [1863]
venue for concert was declared unsafe	Gamerco v ICM
Unavailability of a person due to perform a contract for personal services can amount to frustration (concert pianist unable to play due to illness, so contract frustrated)	Robinson v Davison
death of a master watchmaker, to whom the P's son was apprenticed, after one year of a six year apprenticeship contract	Whincup v Hughes
Frustrating Events - Illegality Declaration of war - trading with the ememy - illegal	The Fibrosa
Frustrating Events - Radical Change in Circumstances - Frustration of Purpose hire a room to watch a coronation procession - cancel - viewing the procession was known to both parties to be the "foundation" of the contract	Krell v Henry
hire a boat to observe naval review by the Kong and to cruise around the fleet, was not frustrated by the cancellation of the review due to the King's illness	Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton
Frustrating Events - Radical Change in Circumstances - Impracticality (English law has been reluctant to allow frustation on this basis) a contract to build houses, due to last 8 months, took 22 months, due to serious shortages of skilled labour and materials. The contract was not frustrated. Mere hardship and incovenience were not enough. The contractors should have protected themselves by making express provision in contract	Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC HL [1956]
Suez Canal was closed	Tsakiroglou v Noblee
Similar to above	The Eugenia
Limits to Frustration - Self-induced Frustration D chartered a boat but chose not to allot one of its license to it, no frustration	Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers
the sinking of a boat intended for use to move an oil rig did not frustrate the contract, because there was another vessel, which could have moved it, but which the D had allocated to another contract	The Super Servant Two
exploding boiler on chartered ship	Joseph Constantine Steamship v Imperial Smelting Corp
Limits to Frustration - Express Provision	Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr Bangladesh Export Import Co v Sucden Kerry
Limits to Frustration - Event Foreseen shortage of labour and materials was foreseeable	Davis v Fareham UDC [1956]
seller of goods generally bears the risk of a failure of the source of supply	CTI v Transclear
the event is foreseen doesn't necessary prevent frustration	The Eugenia
the less foreseeable an event, the more likely it is that the end result will be frustration	The Sea Angel CA [2007]
Effect of Frustration - discharges the contract automatically from the date of the frustrating event Loss "lies where it fails" at common law	Appleby v Myers Chandler v Webster The Fibrosa [1943]
The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 s1(2)	Gamerco v ICM
s1(3)	BP v Hunt

Contract Law - Consideration

Principle	Case Name / Definition
Definition of Consideration	Reciprocal benefit and detriment
something of value in the eyes of the law moving from the promisee	Thomas v Thomas
the price for which the promise of the other is bought (adopting a definition from Pollock's Principles of Contract)	Dunlop v Selfridge
Consideration must be given in return for the promise (Detriment alone is not enough)	Combe v Combe
Consideration must be sufficient (of some value) but need not be adequate (of equal value)	Chappell v Nestle
Past consideration is not good consideration	Roscorla v Thomas Re McArdle
Exception to Past Consideration	Lampleigh v Braithwait Re Casey's Patents Pao On v Lau Yiu Long PC
Consideration must move from promisee	Tweddle v Atkinson
Sufficiency of consideration a. A public duty imposed by the general law	Collins v Godefroy
Sufficiency of consideration a. A public duty imposed by the general law (exception) if the promisee undertakes to do more than that which he is legally bound to do	England v Davidson Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
Sufficiency of consideration b. Performance of a Contractual Duty owed to the Promisor	Stilk v Myrick HL - no Hartley v Ponsonby HL - yes Willaims v Roffey CA [1991] - yes if practical benefit
Glidewell LJ criteria in W v R	- if a person, who is already entitled to the benefit of the contract (provide goods / services) - promises a further sum - in order that the contract be performed as originally agreed - and they (the promisor) obtain a practical benefit as a result of giving the promise - then the performance of the existing contractual duties on the promisee’s part might amount to sufficient consideration - as long as the promise was not given as a result of economic duress or fraud
Economic duress	arises where one party uses a superior economic power in an illegitimate way, so as to coerce the other contracting party to agree to a particular set of terms
modern test for economic duress	DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo Services 1. Pressure 2. the effect of which is compulsion or lack of practical choice 3. which is illegitimate; and 4. which is a significant cause including the claimant to enter the contract
Economic duress may render a contract voidable if it amounts to a coercion of the will which vitiates consent	Per Lord Scarman in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Examples of Economic duress	Atlas v Kafco (absence of practical choice) The Atlantic Baron (not protest for 8 months - meant the contract had been affirmed) The Universe Sentinel (purpose of the threat (blackmail) was illegitimate) CTN Cash & Carry v Gallagher (acting in good faith)
The innocent party, promisor, is entitled to rescind the contract. This right can be lost if they delay.	The Atlantic Baron
Sufficiency of consideration c. Performance of a Contractual Duty owed to a 3rd party	Shadwell v Shadwell
Part Payment of Debt	Pinnel v Cole (exception - giving something else, pay earlier, pay different location, etc) Foakes v Beer HL D & C Builders v Rees CA - use if cheque for lower amount not good consideration for the whole debt
Lord Blackburn - prompt payment of a part of their demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the whole	Foakes v Beer HL
Refused to extend W v R to apply to part-payment of a debt cases (bound by Foakes v Beer HL)	Re Selectmove (CA)
Promissory Estoppel Lord Denning - although a promise to accept less than was due was not supported by consideration, the promise could be used to found a defence and the creditor could be estopped from insist on his strict legal rights	Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
Lord Cairns - starting point - Lord Denning uses it	Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Promissory Estoppel 1. Clear promise that existing rights will not be enforced	Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce
2. The promisee must have 'altered his position' in reliance on the promise made to him	Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
3. It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise and insist on his strict legal rights	D & C Builders v Rees
PE can only be used	as a shield and not a sword
Usually suspensory	Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
sometimes partially extinguish	High Trees, Tool Metal v Tungsten, Collier v Wright

Contract Law - Offer and Acceptance

Guys, after pursuing 4 CCIEs I would like to study something different.  While I am still in the IT career, I am doing a bit of legal study now and I have prepared some notes myself for my examination.  This is one of the table that I've made for my own revision listed out the case summaries and the related principles for Offer and Acceptance in Contract Law.

Principle	Case Name / Definition
Agreement is assessed objectively	Storer v Manchester City Council, CA [1974] Lord Denning - In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in a man's mind
Requirement of Offer and Acceptance	Gibson v Manchester City Council, HL [1979]
Gibson Principle (must know)	The court will analyse the existence of agreement in terms of Offer and Acceptance unless there are "exceptional circumstances".
Definition of Offer (must know)	An indication of a willingness to be bound on certain terms
Definition of Acceptance (must know)	Final and unqualified assent to the terms of the offer
Famous unilateral offer case	Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - CA [1893]
Unilateral offer	Only one party makes a promise. The offeree performs some act as acceptance which need not be communicated to the offeror
Definition of Invitation to Treat	An invitation from one party for the other party to make an offer
Display of Good: Bilateral Offers	Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots [1953]
Advertisment (Hen)	Partridge v Cittenden [1968]
Display of Goods in Shop (Knife)	Fisher v Bell [1960]
An offer must be ...	communicated to the offeree, no exceptions
An offer may be withdrawn at...	any time before Acceptance
Revocation by Offeror before Acceptance case (must know)	Payne v Cave
promise (without consideration) to keep it open for a certain time	Routledge v Grant [1828]
The revocation must be actually communicated to the Offeree (must know)	Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Offer opens for a reasonable time if no deadline set	Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire
Communications of the revocation of offer can be made by reliable 3rd party	Dickson v Dodds
Any counter offers	cancels the original offer
Counter Offers case	Hyde v Wrench
Enquiry is not counter offer	Stevenson v McLean
Acceptance must be ... (must know)	actually communicated to the offeror unless it is a unilateral contract or the postal rule apply
General rules of Acceptance communication	Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp CA [1955]
Silence never an Acceptance	Felthouse v Bindley
Acceptance by Conduct	Pickfords v Celestica
Postal Rule (acceptance only)	Adams v Lindsell [1818]
If Offeror insists on a particular method, the offeree must comply	Yates v Pulleyn
If no instruction / recommendation, then Acceptance must be communicated by a reasonable method	Quenerduaine v Cole
Instantaneous communications - contract is complete when the acceptance is recevied by the offeror. No universal rule in instantaneous communication	Brinkibon HL [1983]
Telexed message effective when received during office hours. Effective when it could be read, rather than when it is in fact read. Mostly applied to business	The Brimnes CA [1975]
Email acceptance - effective on receipt, strong obiter statement	Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010]
Postal acceptance - only if it is reasonable to use post	Henthorn v Fraser [1892]
Postal rule does not apply to offers, revocation of offers, counter-offers or recalls of acceptance	Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Express terms in contract, acceptance must reach the offeror, postal rule not apply	Holwell Securities v Hughes
Revocation of a unlateral offer	Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees
Mere supply of information	Harvey v Davey
No offer can be accepted if the offeree has notice of the offeror's death	Coulthart v Clementson

New LDAP search function in UCM 11.5

There is a new LDAP search function available in UCM 11.5.  In the previous version, you can only search against UDS, the UCM user database.  Although with LDAP integration that means you can still search the LDAP users after they are imported to UCM, it will return the local UCM users as well.  In this release it is allowed for the endpoint to search against the LDAP through UCM.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/11_5_1/sysConfig/CUCM_BK_SE5DAF88_00_cucm-system-configuration-guide-1151/CUCM_BK_SE5DAF88_00_cucm-system-configuration-guide-1151_chapter_0100101.html






In my lab the DXs are working fine.  However the 8861 corporate directory is still searching against UDS.  Still finding out the reason, will update this post once I know why is that.

Enhanced Line Mode on the 8800 series phone

Just upgrade my lab UCM to 11.5.1.10000-6 and trying out some new features.  One of them is the new Enhanced Line Mode on the 8800 series phone.  Previously you can only use the 5 keys on the left as programmable line keys, and the 5 keys on the right are session keys and not programmable.  With Enhanced Line mode, you can convert the 5 session keys into programmable line keys as well.

Firmware version in my lab:


This is the device specific configuration under my 8861 phone.  The list configuration item is the new Line Mode feature.



There is a warning for you that certain features will be missing if you configured your phones in ELM.



After that you will see all 10 keys are now programmable!



Just to randomly configure some features there...



And this is how the phone looks like:

Changing UCM to mixed mode without the need of a token

I have just done it in my lab, running 10.5.2.10000-5.  You can simply change it by issuing the command:

utils cli set-cluster mixed mode

Restart the TFTP and CallManager services, you are good to go!

Detail post here:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/118893-technote-cucm-00.html

CUCILync 10.6(2) now supports Skype For Business!

In the release notes, now support S4B 2015 32-bit edition:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucilync/10_6/CUCI_BK_CE922F5E_00_cucilync_10-6_releasenotes/release_notes.html#CUCI_RF_N256FFA5_00