Frustration

Question 0

Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

Answer 0

D rented music hall to P, it burned down before D used it, court held that the fire was responsible for non performance, it made it impossible to perform, contract ended when music hall was destroyed. Contract was automatically discharged with no damages.

Question 1

Paradine v Jane (1647)

Answer 1

Pre frustration - the army forced a tenant to leave his farm, he could not pay rent, court did not allow that the intervening act should allow non payment of rent. Certainty of contracts is necessary.

Question 2

Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC (1956)

Answer 2

Frustration occurs where the contract becomes radically different from what was undertaken - non haec in federa veni - it was not this that I promised to do. A contract becoming more onerous or expensive to perform is not enough.

Question 3

National Carriers v Panalpina

Answer 3

Warehouse was leased for 10 years, access road was blocked for 20 months, contract wasn’t frustrated as there was no radical difference.

Question 4

Appleby v Myers (1867)

Answer 4

P agreed to erect machinery in D’s building, fire destroyed it just before completion, contract was frustrated, no payment could be claimed.

Question 5

Condor v the Barron Knights

Answer 5

Contract for drummer to work, doctor advised that he should not work for more than 3 days a week, contract was frustrated.

Question 6

FC Shepherd & Co v Jerrom

Answer 6

Apprentice went into prison, was frustration even though arguably his own fault.

Question 7

Jackson v Union Marine Insurance (1873)

Answer 7

Ship ran aground and needed repairs, could not transport good until Autumn rather than spring, constituted a radical difference.

Question 8

British Petroleum v Hunt (1979)

Answer 8

H was contracted to go to Libya to find oil fields, however when he found oil the Libyan government took it back, subject matter was unavailable so frustration occurred. H was able to exploit the supply for a short time so HoL awarded BP some of the money he made under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act

Question 9

Krell v Henry (1903)

Answer 9

D hired a flat for the purpose of watching the coronation, this was cancelled, D did not use the flat, contract frustrated as cancellation of the procession deprived it of its commercial purpose.

Question 10

Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton (1903)

Answer 10

D hired boat to view coronation and provide a day’s cruise for customers, cancellation of coronation did not deprive the contract of it’s sole purpose, no frustration.

Question 11

Fibrosa v Fairburn (1942)

Answer 11

An English company was contracted to supply machinery to a Polish company, during the war trade with Poland became illegal, frustration occurred.

Question 12

Denny, Mott & Dickson v James Fraser (1944)

Answer 12

Contract created for purchase of timber and lease of timber yard, trade of timber became illegal due to the war, most of the contract concerned the trade of timber rather than the lease of the yard so the whole contract was held to have been frustrated.

Question 13

Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (2010)

Answer 13

Trade with Islamic entities was made illegal, an insurance company had underwritten Iranian ships, not all types of insurance had been made illegal, contract not radically changed, no frustration.

Question 14

Tsakiroglou v Noblee & Thorl (1961)

Answer 14

Shipping took longer and cost more due to closure of the Suez canal, held route the ship took was not part of the contract, taking a different route didn’t amount to a radical difference.

Question 15

John Walker Ltd v Amalgamated Investment Co

Answer 15

AIC asked if building was listed, at the time it was not, sale went ahead, after purchase it became listed and lost a lot of value, held that there was no frustration, there was no radical difference as they were buying a property that they knew had a high chance of becoming listed.

Question 16

Maritime National Fishing v Ocean Trawlers (1935)

Answer 16

MNT leased boats from OT as well as owning their own. They had to obtain licences for the boats but could only obtain 3, they used these for their own boats. There was no frustration as they chose to use the licences for their own boats rather than the ones that they leased.

Question 17

The Regina (1964)

Answer 17

Charter specified not to enter dangerous waters, they entered the Suez canal knowing that it may be closed, it was, self induced frustration as they had been told not to enter dangerous waters.

Question 18

The Super Servant 2

Answer 18

Machinery was being transported, the Super Servant 1 was being used for other contracts so the SS2 was used, the SS2 sank, self induced frustration as the SS1 could have been used. Seen as unfair - the SS1 couldn’t have been used without breaching other contracts.

Question 19

Chandler v Webster (1904)

Answer 19

Money for room to watch the coronation was meant to be paid in advance, although the contract was frustrated this money was still due.

Question 20

Whincup v Hughes (1871)

Answer 20

Exception to common law rule on financial consequences, if no performance of the contract has been done at all then money paid before the event can be repaid. A father paid for his son to be an apprentice but the teacher died after a year, couldn’t get money back as some performance had occurred.

Question 21

Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) (1995)

Answer 21

Concert was going to be performed at stadium but it was found to be unsafe and was cancelled, claimants had expenditure of 450,000 but had been paid 412,500 (-30,750 overall), defendants had expenditure of 50,000. Deduction for expenditure not an automatic right, claimants had so many expenses they shouldn’t cover the defendants too.