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