frustrated contracts Flashcards

1
Q

What is frustration?

A

It can be referred to as subsequent impossibility- where a contract becomes impossible to complete after it had been formed. If a contract gets frustrated, it automatically ends.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are force majeure clauses?

A

Express terms in a contact which exclude liability where performance is not complete due to ‘extraordinary events’. This tries to avoid using frustration as courts are very reluctant to find frustration so this provides more certainty and protection for the parties.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

When does frustration apply?

A

Taylor v Caldwell- where a contact cannot be performed because performance has been rendered impossible, and this is through neither parties’ fault, the contract has ended and neither party is in breach.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the 3 main types of frustrating events?

A

-Impossibility of performance
-Illegality
-Radical changes in the circumstances of the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Why was the contract impossible to complete in Taylor v Caldwell?

A

Because the hall had burned down (been destroyed), it was no longer possible to have the concert there. This shows that if the subject matter of the contract gets destroyed, it is impossible to complete the contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happens if the subject matter becomes unavailable?

A

Jackson v Union Marine- here boat has not been destroyed, but it was not available to use and so the contract was impossible to complete. (Unavailable=impossible).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the limit to the rule in Jackson v Union Marine?

A

Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl- Here the court held that the delay was not a frustrating event as the voyage could still be undertaken and completed in the stated time limit in the contact. The fact that it would be more challenging and be more expensive did not frustrate the contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How does unavailability of a person work?

A

Condor v Barron Knights- The court said that his medical condition made it impossible for him to be available for 7 nights a week and so the contract had frustrated. Therefore the boy could be let go. The law for unavailability works in the same way for people as it does for goods.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How does illegality work?

A

Denny, Mott and Dickson v James Fraser- If the law changes so that performing a contract becomes illegal, this will frustrate that contract. Here, the sale of the timer had been made illegal so the contract had been frustrated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does a radical change in circumstances mean?

A

If a contract is made, then circumstances drastically change before performance, the contract may be frustrated as the contract has become pointless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Which case is an example where there was a radical change in circumstances?

A

Krell v Henry- because the purpose of renting was to watch the procession, the renting was now pointless because the procession would not happen. Therefore it had been frustrated due to a change in circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case is an example where there was not a radical change in circumstances?

A

Herne Bay v Hutton- Here, hiring the boat has two purposes: to see the king and his fleet. Although he could not see the King, he could still see the fleet. Therefore the contract was not frustrated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the rule on inconvenient/ non-radical changes in circumstances?

A

If the circumstances have changed, but not to a large extent, this will not frustrate the contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which case is an example where there was an inconvenient/ non-radical change in circumstances?

A

Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, The shortages were an inconvenient circumstance, but they did not change the nature of what the builder was expected to do in any major way (was contracted to build houses, and was still building houses).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the limits to frustration?

A

-Foreseeable events
-Self-induced frustration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What does the limit of foreseeable events mean?

A

Amalgamated Investment Property Co v John Walker- if the frustrating event could have been foreseen by the party, they cannot argue this frustrated their contract (like in this case with the old building being listed).

17
Q

What does the limit of self-induced frustration mean?

A

The Super Servant Two- if the frustrating event was due to a voluntary action/choice of one of the parties, the contract won’t be frustrated as one party was in control so it is their fault.

18
Q

What is the effect of frustration?

A

Frustration automatically ends a contract from the point of the frustrating event, the parties have no choice in this.

19
Q

Which act covers the effect of frustration?

A

Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943

20
Q

Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943

A

Money paid at the time or before the frustrating event is recoverable (minus expenses at the court’s discretion). Any money still to be paid ceases to be payable.

21
Q

What does s1(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 say?

A

Where no pre-payment was made or was payable before the frustrating event, but the party has partly performed the contract, some money may be awarded for the worth of that performance/ to repay any expenses.

22
Q

Which case shows that any expenses paid are at the court’s discretion?

A

Gamerco v ICM Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd- although the defendants had paid some money in preparation for the concert, the court allowed Gamerco to recover the full amount of money so there were no expenses.