Law Notes > Contract Law Notes
A more recent version of these Doctrine Of Frustration notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Doctrine of Frustration Has the change of circumstances make performance radically different from that which was originally undertaken?
*
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956]: o Lord Radcliffe:
? Courts first examine contracts and the circumstances in which they were made
*
In order to see whether or not from the nature of the parties must have made their bargain on the footing that a particular thing or state of things would continue to exist. o If they must have done so, a term will thereby be implied that this is the case.
? Court will then ask whether or not literal enforcement of obligations in new circumstances
*
Will lead to radically different performance than that originally promised o owing to this non-existence of the thing contemplated at formation that it would continue to exist. What makes performance radically different?
1. Legal impossibility
*
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr [1918]: M contracted with D to build dam. Subsequently while work taking place, D banned from continuing work by Ministry of War. o Lord Atkinson:
? Parties can be excused when conditions anticipated at contract formation have completely changed since then,
*
making performance entirely different (i.e. b/c illegal).
*
Or if contract continued, they would be bound for indeterminate length of time.
2. Physical impossibility
*
Death and Serious Incapacity in personal service contracts
*
Destruction of Subject Matter o Taylor v Caldwell [1863]: Music hall hired for concerts by D, subsequently destroyed accidently be fire before concerts performed.
? Blackburn J:
*
Where parties knew something had to exist in order for the contract to be performed at contract formation o But subsequently that thing disappeared without their fault
? Parties have implied condition that they intend to be excused if performance thereby becomes impossible.
*
Failure of Supplies o S.7 Sale of Goods Act:
? Where agreement to sell specific goods
*
Without any fault of seller or buyer o Goods perish before risk transferred to buyer o Contract is avoided
*
o But where goods are unascertained, then risk will normally be on the seller to find alternative supplier, meaning contracts here rarely frustrated. Delay and Hardship of finding substitute o Must be caused by new and unforeseen event, however, not just within commercial risks undertaken
? Davis Contractors v Fareham [1965]:
*
Lord Radcliffe: o Lack of Provision for shortages/delays within contract which are foreseeable in the trade do not make contract radically different.
? Can't just use frustration to get out of bad bargain. o Performance in new circumstances must radically alter the rights and obligations originally undertaken (question of degree)
? Jackson v Marine Insurance Co Ltd [1879]: Ship meant to end up in San Francisco w/ cargo, ran aground and was delayed for several months. Z pulled out of charterparty, C could only claim insurance from D if contract frustrated, not for breach.
*
Bramwell B: o Although trip agreed could be made eventually, time gap between two trips indicated that latter trip was a new adventure
? a voyage which Z and C had no intention of making when the contract was made
*
Thus, contract frustrated by delay leading to new obligations.
? The Eugenia: D, if hadn't broken war clause by entering Suez Canal, would have had to take ship round Cape of Good Hope rather than through canal, leading to 30 day longer journey.
*
Lord Denning MR: o Goods carried not needed at market place at exact time - could be delayed w/ little effect to price o Delay of 30 days capable of being performed by ship, and not unreasonable delay.
? Therefore, performance different and longer, but not radically different from that originally agreed.
3. Purposeless
*
Contract, while not impossible to perform or leading to unreasonable hardship o can still be frustrated when the intervening event has so undermined the purpose of the contract
? that it should be discharged
*
Krell v Henry [1903]: Rooms advertised as having view of coronation procession hired out to D, but procession cancelled before contract performance. o Vaughan Williams LJ:
? First must ask: What is the substance of the contract?
*
If substantial contract needs for its foundation the assumption of the existence of a particular state of things. o Then contract is limited to performance if that state of things exists.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.