frustration in english law
TRANSCRIPT
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 1/8
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 2/8
The burning down of the Surrey music hall in Taylor v Caldwell deemed a contract for its
hire frustrated
Early cases such as Paradine v Jane[5] show the historical line that the courts took toward
a frustration of purpose in contract; here, the courts held that where land under lease tothe defendant had been invaded by Royalist forces, he was still under obligation to pay
rent to the land owner.[6] It was not until the case of Taylor v Caldwell that a doctrine of frustration was formally recognized, alleviating the potential harshness of previous
decisions.[7] Here, two parties contracted on the hire of a music hall, for the performance
of concerts. Subsequent to contracting, but prior to the dates of hire, the music hall burned down. It was held the contract was impossible to perform;[2] Judge Blackburn
stated that the absolute liability set forth in Paradine v Jane would not apply in the
instant case, as there was an implied condition that the music hall would be in existenceat the date of the planned concerts.[2] This had the effect of excusing the parties from the
contract. The implied term test was explained by Lord Loreburn:
In most of the cases it is said that there was an implied condition in the contract which
operated to release the parties from performing it, and in all of them I think that was at bottom the principle upon which the court proceeded.[8]
Subsequent development occurred in the case of Krell v Henry,[9] a case arising out of the
coronation of King Edward VII. The defendant here agreed by contract to rent a flat
located at Pall Mall from the plaintiff, for the purpose of watching the coronation procession of Edward VII scheduled for June 26 and 27.[10] Despite the fact that there was
no mention of the coronation ceremony in any of the parties written correspondence, the
court held the contract frustrated in purpose by the cancellation of the coronation. It could
be inferred from the dealings of the parties that the principal aim of the hiring was thewitnessing of the coronation.[11] This result can be contrasted with that of Herne Bay
Steamboat Co v Hutton,[12] another coronation case. In this case, an individual hired asteamboat for the purposes of travelling to Spithead to cruise round an assembled fleet,
and to witness the naval review of King Edward's coronation. The courts subsequently
held that following the cancellation of the coronation, the entire purpose of the contract
had not been frustrated, as the cruise was still possible.[13]
The test used in these two cases - finding a radical change in the intentions of contracting
parties - has found favour over the implied term test, which has been criticised to the
extent of being called a "grave threat to the sanctity of contract."[14] A common objection
to this test was that it was 'artificial'; in many cases, such as Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC ,[15] it would not be true to say that both parties would intend for an
implied term to cover particular situations. Thus an implication of a term to discharge a
contract may run contrary to the intentions of the contracting parties.[16] As a result, a testof contractual purpose is preferred, as laid out in Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC , in
the judgment of Lord Reid:
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 3/8
The question is whether the contract which they did make is, on its true construction,
wide enough to apply to the new situation: if it is not, then it is at an end.[17]
[edit] Frustrating events
[edit] Destruction of the subject matter
Where an item or building essential to the contract - which has been expressly identified -is destroyed, through no fault of either party, it can be set aside as impossible to perform,
as established in Taylor v Caldwell . Such principles differ however when considering the
sale of goods. The agreement of the parties is important when considering whether it has been frustrated.[18] If it is agreed that goods from a specific source will be provided, the
contract falls under Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979:[19]
Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods and subsequently the goods, without
any fault on the part of the seller or buyer, perish before the risk passes to the buyer, the
agreement is avoided.
However, where a contract does not provide 'specific' goods, as required for the Act to
operate, it will fall under common law rules. A contract will not be frustrated if generic
goods are destroyed - or rendered commercially non-viable. The risk is assumed to passwith the seller.[2]
[edit] Supervening illegality
Where a law subsequent to contracting is passed, which renders the fundamental principle of contracting illegal, the contract will be found to be frustrated.[20] There are
several situations in which this may occur. Events such as war may render certain trading
or actions illegal, as was the case in Denny, Mott & Dickinson v James Fraser .[21]
Changes in the law may render building work illegal, or the use of certain materials
illegal. A contract for the construction of a reservoir was held to be frustrated following
wartime building regulations.[22]
Such principles apply equally where contractual obligations become illegal in foreigncountries, if this is where they are to occur. [23]
[edit] Incapacity or death
A contract may become frustrated where a person or group under contract become
unavailable (either through death, illness or unavailability). This generally occurs only
for the performance of personal services,[2] and not for generic commercial services suchas building work, which could be performed by numerous individuals.[2] Robinson v
Davison[24] involved a piano player who became ill prior to a concert he was contracted to
play in; the contract was held to be frustrated. A similar result can be seen in Condor vThe Baron Knights.[25]
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 4/8
There has been more difficulty for the courts in deciding when contracts for employment
may be frustrated.[26] Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co[27] shows that the inability of an
employee to perform contractual duties - due to, in this case, a heart attack - frustrates hiscontract of employment. Such a principle terminates a contract for employment
immediately; the employee is not entitled to the same protection under employment
protection legislation, as demonstrated in Notcutt , where Mr Notcutt was not allowed to pursue sick pay under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.[28]
[edit] Limits of the doctrine
The case of Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd demonstrates that afrustrating event cannot be in any way self induced
The courts have imposed several limits on where contracts will be frustrated, so as - in
the interests of certainty - not to release parties from their contractual obligations too
easily. An important limitation is that economic hardship, or a 'bad bargain', will notrender a contract frustrated.[29] Thus in Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC the courts
declined to render a contract for building work frustrated purely because the price of
labour and materials had increased.[30] Lord Reid explained the distinction between acontract becoming more onerous, and being of a different kind:
“ In a contract of this kind the contractor undertakes to do the work for a definite
sum and he takes the risk of the cost being greater or less than he expected. If
delays occur through no one's fault that may be in the contemplation of thecontract, and there may be provision for extra time being given: to that extent the
other party takes the risk of delay. But he does not take the risk of the cost being
increased by such delay. It may be that delay could be of a character so differentfrom anything contemplated that the contract was at an end, but in this case, in my
opinion, the most that could be said is that the delay was greater in degree than was
to be expected. It was not caused by any new and unforeseeable factor or event: the
job proved to be more onerous but it never became a job of a different kind fromthat contemplated in the contract.[31] ”
Of importance in deciding whether a contract is frustrated is that the event cannot have
been in any way induced by either of the parties.[32] For example, a claim of frustration
was denied in Ocean Tramp Tankers Corporation v V/O Sovfracht ,[33] where a charterer
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 5/8
for a ship allowed it to travel through the Suez Canal, and subsequently become stuck
(following the closure of the canal during war time). Additionally, where a frustrating
event is foreseeably induced, a claim of frustration may be denied. [34] Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [35] exemplifies this principle. Maritime National Fish
contracted to hire a steam trawler fitted with an otter trawl, from Ocean Trawlers Ltd.
Both parties knew that the use of such a vessel without a license was illegal.Subsequently, Maritime National Fish applied for five licenses from the Canadian
government, however, only three were granted. Maritime National Fish did not name the
hired vessel from Ocean Trawlers as one of the licensed vessels, and refused to gothrough with the hire, on the grounds the contract was frustrated. Their appeal was
rejected on the grounds that they themselves had taken on the risk that some licenses may
be denied, and by thereby not allocating a license to their chartered steam trawler, the
frustration was self induced.[3]
[edit] Apportionment of losses
A contract rendered frustrated ends obligations following the frustrating event.[36] Under previous common law rules, this had the effect of producing potentially inequitable
results, for example if a pre-payment was paid by one party to the other, it could not berecovered.[37] Such a rule was generally agreed to be contrary to the principles of equity.[38] Chandler v Webster [39] demonstrates a classical establishment of this, where recovery
of a pre-payment for the hiring of a flat under contract (which was subsequently deemedimpossible) was unrecoverable. Additionally here, it was decided that as a further
obligation to pay the entire balance had occurred prior to the frustrating event, this was
also due. This rule was not effectively reconsidered until Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd ,[40] where the House of Lords ruled that payments
made in return for no consideration should be recoverable:
“ It is clear that any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of
what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a manfrom retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is
against conscience that he should keep.[41] ”
This judgment was not however a complete solution to the problem.[42] A remaining
problem could be found in Whincup v Hughes,[43] where a watch maker died after
performing one year of his contractual obligations. None of the £25 paid could berecovered, despite just a small portion of the contractual obligations being fulfilled.
[edit] Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
Main article: Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
The issue of financial obligation and recovery of pre-payments was effectively put to restwith the enactment of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, a result of the
Law Reform Commission's Seventh Interim Report.[44] Under the act, payments can be
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 6/8
recovered in full or in part, in a manner which the courts deem equitable. Additionally, as
demonstrated in BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No. 2),[45] where a party has had
a considerable benefit conferred upon them prior to the frustrating event, the courts canapportion some or all of this benefit to the other party, again where it is deemed
equitable.
[edit] See also
• Paradine v Jane
• Taylor v Caldwell
• Krell v Henry
• Cooper v Phibbs [1867] UKHL 1, (1867) LR 2 HL 149
• Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
• English contract law
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
2. ^ a b c d e f Koffman, Macdonald, p. 520
3. ^ a b Halson, p. 419
4. ^ Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd [1982] AC 724, p. 752
5. ^ Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26
6. ^ Halson, p. 417
7. ^ Beale (2002) p. 6118. ^ F.A. Tamplin in S.S. Co Ltd v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co Ltd
[1916] 2 AC 397, 403-404
9. ^ Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740
10. ^ Beale (2002) p. 612
11. ^ Beale (2002) p. 614
12. ^ Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683
13. ^ Beale (2002) p. 617
14. ^ McElroy, Williams (April, 1941), p. 243
15. ^ Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696
16. ^ Halson (2001) p. 422
17. ^ [1956] AC 696, p. 72118. ^ Koffman, Macdonald, p. 528
19. ^ Sale of Goods Act 1979 c. 54
20. ^ Koffman, Macdonald, p. 526
21. ^ Denny, Mott & Dickinson v James Fraser [1944] AC 265
22. ^ Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd [1918] AC 119
23. ^ Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287
24. ^ Robinson v Davison (1870-71) LR 6 Ex 269
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 7/8
25. ^ Condor v The Baron Knights [1966] 1 WLR 87
26. ^ Brodie 2006, p. 4
27. ^ Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co [1986] 1 WLR 641
28. ^ Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (c 44)
29. ^ Poole (2008) p. 575
30. ^ Koffman, Macdonald, p. 52431. ^ [1956] AC 696, p. 724
32. ^ Poole (2008) p. 562
33. ^ Ocean Tramp Tankers Corporation v V/O Sovfracht [1964] 2 QB 226
34. ^ Halson, p. 418
35. ^ Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524
36. ^ Halson, p. 427
37. ^ Koffman, Macdonald, p. 539
38. ^ McElroy, Williams (June, 1941), p. 243
39. ^ Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493
40. ^ Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] AC
32
41. ^ [1942] AC 32, p. 61
42. ^ Halson, p. 428
43. ^ Whincup v Hughes (1870-71) LR 6 CP 78
44. ^ Seventh Interim Report, Cmd. 6009 of 1939
45. ^ BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1979] 1 WLR 783
[edit] References
Books
• Beale, Hugh (2002). Contract Law (Common Law of Europe). Hart Publishing.ISBN 1-84113-237-3.
• Halson, Roger (2001). Contract Law. Longman. ISBN 0-582-08647-7.• {{cite book|last1=Koffman|first1=Laurence|last2=Macdonald|first2=Elizabeth|
title=The Law of Contract|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=20
• Poole, Jill (2008). Casebook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-923352-7.
Articles
• D Brodie, 'Performance issues and frustration of contract' (2006) 71 Employment
Law Bulletin 4• A Chandler, J Devenney and J Poole, 'Common mistake: theoretical justifications
and remedial inflexibility' [2004] Journal of Business Law 34
• McElroy, R; Williams, Glanville (1941). "The Coronation Cases. I". The Modern
Law Review (Blackwell Publishing) 4 (4).• McElroy, R; Williams, Glanville (1941). "The Coronation Cases. II". The Modern
Law Review (Blackwell Publishing) 5 (1).
7/29/2019 Frustration in English Law
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frustration-in-english-law 8/8