Chapter 42 - Discharge by frustration Flashcards
Discharge by Frustration
Where the doctrine of frustration discharges both parties from their contractual obligations where following the formation of the contract, performance of the contractual obligations become either: Impossible; or Radically different
Grounds for Claiming Frustration
-Impossibility
-Illegality
-Radical change in circumstances
Frustration - Impossibility
-Where it becomes impossible to carry out contract
-Shown in Taylor v Caldwell
-Also applies where becomes impossible through no fault of the contracting parties
-Shown in Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co. ltd
Frustration - Ilegality
-Contract may be frustrated as a result of a change in the law that makes the contract illegal
-Seen in Denny, Mott and Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser and Co. Ltd
Frustration - Radical In circumstances
-Where there is a radical change in circumstances as the essential commercial purpose of the contract cannot be achieved
-seen in Krell v Henry
Limits to Frustration - When frustration Cannot Apply
-Self induced frustration
-The contract becoming less profitable
-The event being a foreseeable risk or the event was mentioned in the contract
Self induced frustration
-Frustration will not apply when the event is within the control of one party
-Seen in Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd
Force Majeure Clause
Excludes liability for the parties for delay in performance or the non-performance if there are extraordinary events
Contract has become less profitable
-A contract becoming less profitable or more difficult to complete is not a reason for frustration of that contract
-Seen in Davis Contractors Ltd v Farnham Urban District Council
Event being a foreseeable risk was mentioned in the contract
-Parties are expected to do their due diligence, especially if they are experienced in that profession