frustration Flashcards
what is frustration
developed to mitigate the effects of absolute contact under which party could escape liability on basis that performance had become impossible or futile
Jane v paradine facts
WAR
- p leased farm 2 Jane, civil war began after contract an janes land was seized
- p sued for unpaid rent
Jane v paradine HELD
- court held that Jane was liable for the unpaid rent as the contract was not frustrated
Taylor v caldwell FACTS
- caldwell rented music hall to Taylor and then a fire destroyed the hall before performance and T sued 4 BOC
Taylor v caldwell HELD
- C released on obligations as fire frustrated the contract as the call was the subject matter of the contract and it was unavailable
krell v Henry facts
- K rent flat to H for high price to watch the royal proceedings which were cancelled and h refused to pay
- K argued flat still avail and H agreed that rental purpose was unattianable
krell v Henry held
-main purpose of contract couldn’t be fulfilled so was frustrated and the high price was due to the royal procession
what is legal test per Davis
- circumstances become/change so drastically that the performance of the contract become radically diffenrt from what originally contemplated
rayneon v fraser facts
- F contract w r for neon sign 4 advert then nz govt banned the neon signs so F stopped paying
- r sued for unpaid rent
rayneon v fraser held
- court found that the contract had frustrated due to supervening illegality and the performnace was impossible so F not needed to pay rent
3 types of super veining events for frustration
- beyond the control of parties
- unattainabilty of purpose
- Self induced frustration
what is the high threshold of frustration
- needs to be kept within narrow limits as the effect of frustration is to kill the contract
davis contractors v Farnham urban district council facts
- d to build lots of houses in 8 months but there was shortage of labour so was delayed 14 month and costed extra 1,500
davis contractors v Farnham urban district council held
- court found that contract wasn’t frustrated it was just more expensive
tsakiroglou v noblee facts
- t contracted to ship peanuts for set price through the suex canal which them got closed but the contact didn’t specify a alternative route and alternative route 4x cost
- t argued frustration as Suez closed
tsakiroglou v noblee held
- not frustration as increased cost not frustration unless it is not possible
self induced frustration
- party cannot claim 2 be discharged from a contract due to an intervening event if that event was caused by your own choices
maritime v ocean traveler facts
- m getting lisnces for 3 out of 5 boats and chose for charted boat to not get one so it couldn’t operate as a fishing boat and then m sued for BOC as he wasn’t Able to used finishing bot
maritime v ocean traveler held
- not frustration as m chose to exclude the fishing boat and events of frustration must be out of control of the parties
Lauritzen v Wijsmuller facts
- L agreed to transport oil rig via one of two units they owned
- L claimed contract was frustrated as one of the units was being used so argued for discharge from contract due to impossibility
Lauritzen v Wijsmuller held
- not frustrated as the contract for for one of the two unit and 1 of them was available and the choice was avoidable and it was foreseeable
what is the multifactorial approach to frustration
- consider
1. contract terms
2. context
3. parties expectations
4. supervening event nature and forsee
5. feasibility of future performance
Brisbane city council v group projects
- frustration though each judgement not set rules, supervening event must be significant on the contract foundation
what is the nz approach to frustration
- use the multifactorial approach to remedy injustice and assess frustration ensuring fairness between parties