frustration Flashcards
(32 cards)
what is frustration
developed to mitigate the effects of absolute contact under which party could escape liability on basis that performance had become impossible or futile
Jane v paradine facts
WAR
- p leased farm 2 Jane, civil war began after contract an janes land was seized
- p sued for unpaid rent
Jane v paradine HELD
- court held that Jane was liable for the unpaid rent as the contract was not frustrated
Taylor v caldwell FACTS
- caldwell rented music hall to Taylor and then a fire destroyed the hall before performance and T sued 4 BOC
Taylor v caldwell HELD
- C released on obligations as fire frustrated the contract as the call was the subject matter of the contract and it was unavailable
krell v Henry facts
- K rent flat to H for high price to watch the royal proceedings which were cancelled and h refused to pay
- K argued flat still avail and H agreed that rental purpose was unattianable
krell v Henry held
-main purpose of contract couldn’t be fulfilled so was frustrated and the high price was due to the royal procession
what is legal test per Davis
- circumstances become/change so drastically that the performance of the contract become radically diffenrt from what originally contemplated
rayneon v fraser facts
- F contract w r for neon sign 4 advert then nz govt banned the neon signs so F stopped paying
- r sued for unpaid rent
rayneon v fraser held
- court found that the contract had frustrated due to supervening illegality and the performnace was impossible so F not needed to pay rent
3 types of super veining events for frustration
- beyond the control of parties
- unattainabilty of purpose
- Self induced frustration
what is the high threshold of frustration
- needs to be kept within narrow limits as the effect of frustration is to kill the contract
davis contractors v Farnham urban district council facts
- d to build lots of houses in 8 months but there was shortage of labour so was delayed 14 month and costed extra 1,500
davis contractors v Farnham urban district council held
- court found that contract wasn’t frustrated it was just more expensive
tsakiroglou v noblee facts
- t contracted to ship peanuts for set price through the suex canal which them got closed but the contact didn’t specify a alternative route and alternative route 4x cost
- t argued frustration as Suez closed
tsakiroglou v noblee held
- not frustration as increased cost not frustration unless it is not possible
self induced frustration
- party cannot claim 2 be discharged from a contract due to an intervening event if that event was caused by your own choices
maritime v ocean traveler facts
- m getting lisnces for 3 out of 5 boats and chose for charted boat to not get one so it couldn’t operate as a fishing boat and then m sued for BOC as he wasn’t Able to used finishing bot
maritime v ocean traveler held
- not frustration as m chose to exclude the fishing boat and events of frustration must be out of control of the parties
Lauritzen v Wijsmuller facts
- L agreed to transport oil rig via one of two units they owned
- L claimed contract was frustrated as one of the units was being used so argued for discharge from contract due to impossibility
Lauritzen v Wijsmuller held
- not frustrated as the contract for for one of the two unit and 1 of them was available and the choice was avoidable and it was foreseeable
what is the multifactorial approach to frustration
- consider
1. contract terms
2. context
3. parties expectations
4. supervening event nature and forsee
5. feasibility of future performance
Brisbane city council v group projects
- frustration though each judgement not set rules, supervening event must be significant on the contract foundation
what is the nz approach to frustration
- use the multifactorial approach to remedy injustice and assess frustration ensuring fairness between parties