Frustration

Question 1

Frustration

Answer 1

Doctrine of frustration applies when a change of circumstances transform the contract into something radically different from that which the parties undertook when they entrees into the contract

Frustrated from point of supervening event

Question 2

Paradise v Jane 1647

Answer 2

Contractual obligations were considered absolute and a frustrating event had no impact on the parties obligations

Question 3

Taylor v Caldwell 1863

Answer 3

Doctrine of frustration emerged

Music hall burned down

“An implied condition that the parties shall be excused in case…performance becomes impossible - Blackburn J

Now replaced by a radical change in circumstances

Question 4

Davis contractors v fare ham urban district council 1956

Answer 4

Lord Radcliffe
~> frustration is not to be invoked lightly as the dissolvent of a contract’

Contract not frustrated just because it would take longer to complete does not relieve the contractors of their obligation

Thought the houses would take 8 months actually took 22 and cost more

Question 5

Davis contractors v fareham

Lord Radcliffe quote

Answer 5

Lord Radcliffe
~> “there must be such a change in the significance of the obligation that the thing undertake would, if performed, be a different thing than contracted for”

Question 6

Krell v Henry

Answer 6

Not allowed to cover balance of rent as coronation was ‘foundation of the contract’

Question 7

Herne bay steam boat co v Hutton

Answer 7

Could still use the boat for pleasure, hired at hutton’s risk

Question 8

Tsakiroglou co ltd v noblee thorl GmbH

Answer 8

Closure of a canal meant journeys would be longer and more expensive

Contract made before closure deemed not frustrated, if performance is still possible the fact it’s more expensive is irrelevant

Not simply awarded for a bad bargain

Question 9

Amalgamated investment and property xo ltd v John walker and sons

Answer 9

Redevelopment of buildings bought became difficult due to it being listed dos not mean that there was no purpose to contract it just wasn’t as lucrative as expected

Question 10

Gold group properties Ltd v bow trading Ltd

Answer 10

Not frustrated due to a fall in house prices

Performance not impossible

No supervening event

Question 11

Self induced frustration

Answer 11

Where a party has a choice

Question 12

Maritime national fish ltd v ocean trawlers ltd

Answer 12

Canadian government granted 3 licences but they had 5 ships

Not frustrated as they had a choice of which ships they chose

Question 13

The super servant two

Answer 13

Sinking did not frustrated the contract as they chose to use the super servant one on another contract

Question 14

Foreseeable events

Answer 14

Contract not frustrated if event is foreseeable

Any person of ordinary intelligence would regard as likely to occur
~> Treitel

Question 15

Four seasons Healy care v Maughan (2004)

Answer 15

Suspended for abuse

His contact expressly foresaw the possibility he might be accused of abuse and provided for disciplinary proceedings

Not frustrated until conviction so entitled to pay before this point

Question 16

Contract not treated as if never happened

Answer 16

Loss should lie where it fell Andy payments before event are not recoverable

Question 17

Fibrosa v fairbairn 1943

Answer 17

Advanced payments recoverable of total failure of consideration

Ban on traded for with the enemy

Question 18

Appleby v Myers

Answer 18

Premises holding machinery destroyed in a fire

Because payment was not contracted to pay until completion, not entitled to payment for s portion unless prevented from completion by employer

Question 19

Bayne v walker

Answer 19

Where an ac of God prevents completion neither party has a remedy against the other

Question 20

Cutter v Powell

Answer 20

Plaintiff died part way through voyage

His estate argued for payment based on quantum merit

Not completed and payment due on completion so not entitled to any money

Question 21

Law reform (frustrated contracts) Act 1943

Answer 21

S1(2) entitles a person to recover money pis under a contract prior to frustrating event

Mckendrick- ‘grave deficiencies’ are still there in LR

Question 22

BP v Hunt

Answer 22

S1(3) valuable benefit

Goff J - provision itself may not be a valuable benefit but the end result might be

In appropriate cases end product may be the valuable benefit

BP already gone to some research expense so were entitled some of it

Question 23

Gamerco v ICM

Answer 23

Venue declared unsafe so gamerco were entitled to their money back

Courts discretion

Justice not equality

Question 24

Robinson v Davison

Answer 24

Piano player booked to perform but was ill on the day

Question 25

LR scope

Answer 25

Doesn't apply to goods frustrated by perishing or carriage of goods by sea or insurance policies

Question 26

Implied term theory

Answer 26

Contract discharged by implication that parties would have agreed at time of contract of frustrating event occurs they would not have considered themselves bound Taylor v Caldwell Professor Ibbetson - rules of law behind a facade of party intention

Question 27

Imposed or just solution theory

Answer 27

Sees courts intervening to impose a fair solution due to loci cal difficulty in seeing how the parties could have impliedly provided for something they neither expected or foresaw