Frustration cases
Effect of discharge will mean they are no longer liable for any further obligations under the
contract.
Contract is legal binding agreement.
Discharge of obligations: parties no longer liable for any further obligations under the
contract (not required to meet the terms of the agreement)
Obligations can be discharged by:
Agreement
Breach
Performance
Frustration
Common law on frustration:
When an event occurs after the formation of the contract, which is beyond the control of
either party, which makes the obligations under that contract impossible or illegal to
perform or radically alters the nature of the obligations.
Effect of frustration is that the parties are released from their contractual obligations.
Origins or rule:
DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION to perform the contract. Contractual promises had to
be performed even after a major change of events.
Harsh rule was that no party could always make express provision for unforeseen
events and if he did not do so he should be bound by his contractual obligations.
(Paradine v Jane)
Frustration developed to alleviate the harshness of absolute obligations. Contract
was frustrated and parties were excused of obligations as subject matter was
destroyed and this discharged the contract. (Taylor v Caldwell)
What constitutes a frustrating event?
Events that are sufficiently serious to render performance impossible or radically
different.
1. Destruction of subject matter- Taylor v Caldwell: destruction of subject matter prior
to formation of contract will render it void for COMMON MISTAKE. Doesn’t have to
be complete destruction. If what is destroyed is fundamental to performance of
obligations under the contract, then doctrine will operate.
2. Non availability of one of the parties due to death, illness, or other circumstances-
Condor v The Barron knights ltd: minor nervous breakdown. Most commercial
contracts don’t require performance by one person and no other. This principle
doesn’t normally prevent performance of the contract. If is for personal service then
this principle will make performance impossible.
3. Supervening illegality- Avery v Bowden: illegal or contrary to law subsequently
passed.
4. Non-occurrence of event forming basis of contract- Krell v Henry: contract was
frustrated even though performance was still physically and legally possible. Herne
Effect of discharge will mean they are no longer liable for any further obligations under the
contract.
Contract is legal binding agreement.
Discharge of obligations: parties no longer liable for any further obligations under the
contract (not required to meet the terms of the agreement)
Obligations can be discharged by:
Agreement
Breach
Performance
Frustration
Common law on frustration:
When an event occurs after the formation of the contract, which is beyond the control of
either party, which makes the obligations under that contract impossible or illegal to
perform or radically alters the nature of the obligations.
Effect of frustration is that the parties are released from their contractual obligations.
Origins or rule:
DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION to perform the contract. Contractual promises had to
be performed even after a major change of events.
Harsh rule was that no party could always make express provision for unforeseen
events and if he did not do so he should be bound by his contractual obligations.
(Paradine v Jane)
Frustration developed to alleviate the harshness of absolute obligations. Contract
was frustrated and parties were excused of obligations as subject matter was
destroyed and this discharged the contract. (Taylor v Caldwell)
What constitutes a frustrating event?
Events that are sufficiently serious to render performance impossible or radically
different.
1. Destruction of subject matter- Taylor v Caldwell: destruction of subject matter prior
to formation of contract will render it void for COMMON MISTAKE. Doesn’t have to
be complete destruction. If what is destroyed is fundamental to performance of
obligations under the contract, then doctrine will operate.
2. Non availability of one of the parties due to death, illness, or other circumstances-
Condor v The Barron knights ltd: minor nervous breakdown. Most commercial
contracts don’t require performance by one person and no other. This principle
doesn’t normally prevent performance of the contract. If is for personal service then
this principle will make performance impossible.
3. Supervening illegality- Avery v Bowden: illegal or contrary to law subsequently
passed.
4. Non-occurrence of event forming basis of contract- Krell v Henry: contract was
frustrated even though performance was still physically and legally possible. Herne
