Frustration Flashcards
What case invented Frustration - From the frustration sheet I filled in because of the teacher training day using the sheet provided which is saved in the college folder as Law Teacher Training Day Work
Taylor v Caldwell (1863), Caldwell owned Surrey Gardens & Music Hall, and agreed to rent it out to Taylor for £100 a day. Taylor had planned to use the music hall for four concerts and entertainment throughout summer 1861.
A week before the first concert was to be given, the music hall burned to the ground. Taylor sued Caldwell for breach of contract for failing to provide a music hall.
The ratio in this case is you cannot sue for damages where the contract has been frustrated because something has happened which makes the contract impossible to perform.
Frustration through impossibility same as card 1
Filler
Nicholl & Night V Ashton Eldridge (1901) same as card 1 and law e-resources
Here a specific ship was named to ship cottonseed, the ship went aground and no other method of performance was specified in the contract.
Held: By naming the exact ship which was to carry the cargo, the contract was frustrated as it was impossible for this ship to carry the cargo within the contractually agreed period.
Tsakiroglou V Noblee Thorl (1962) same as card 1 and law e-resources
Here there was a contract to ship groundnuts, it was anticipated (and therefore costed) that they would come through the Suez Canal. When the canal was closed through war they had to come around South Africa.
Held: The contract was not frustrated. It was still possible to perform the contract without any damage to the peanuts. The fact that it was more difficult or costly to perform is not sufficient to amount to frustration.
What is the difference between the past 2 cards - same as card 1 but my answer so may not be correct
In Nickol the ship had been named, so when it went aground it was impossible for this ship to carry the cargo within the contractually agreed period. While in Tsakiroglou it was still possible to perform to perform the contract even though the circumstances had changed.
Frustration through illegality same as card 1
Filler
Fibrosa V Fairbarn Lawson (1943) same as card 1 and law e-resources
There was a contract to sell a machine to a Polish company, Germany invaded Poland, going through with the sale would have amounted to trading with the enemy at time of war.
Held: the contract was frustrated as it was no longer possible to perform the contract because of the supervening illegality.
From what I said - it is illegal to trade with the enemy because the contract could assist your enemy so effectively you could be acting against your own country.
Frustration through radical change in circumstances Same as card 1
Filler
Krell V Henry (1903) same as card 1 and law e-resources
The coronation of Edward 7th was cancelled as he was ill. Part of the coronation celebrations included a procession. The defendant contracted to hire a room overlooking the route of the procession, because of the procession the cost was far greater than usual.
Held: The contract was frustrated as cancellation of the procession deprived it of its commercial purpose. The claimant’s action for breach of contract was thus unsuccessful.
Herne Bay Steamboat V Hutton (1903) law e-resources
The defendant hired out the claimant’s steamship. The purpose of the contract was to take paying passengers to view the Naval Review which was part of King Edward VII’s coronation celebrations. The defendants were also offering a day’s cruise for the passengers. The Naval Review was cancelled as the King was ill. The defendant did not use the steamship and the claimant brought an action for the agreed contract price. The defendant argued the contract had become frustrated due to the cancellation of the Naval Review.
Held: The contract was not frustrated. The contract had not been deprived of its sole commercial purpose as it was still possible to perform the days cruise. The Naval Review was not the only commercial purpose of the contract.
What is the difference between the two previous case same as card 1
Krell was frustrated but Herne Bay wasn’t because in Krell the cancellation had deprived it of its commercial purpose. While in Herne Bay the contract had not been deprived of its sole commercial purpose as it was still possible to perform the days cruise.
Part 2 - limits to frustration same as card 1
Filler
Choice - Super Servant 2 (1989) same as card 1
Defendant owned Super Servant I and Super Servant 2, 2 ocean-going tug boats. The claimant contracted to have defendants use one of the Super Servants to move their oil rig (neither SS was specified). Def then made other contracts for SS I. SS II sank. The defendants claimed frustration.
The ratio of the case is that where a party has a choice of some sort the contract won’t be frustrated. In this case the defendant chose to make other contracts with S I.
What is a force majeure clause and why are force majeure terms attractive to the parties to a contract same as card 1
This is a contract term that sets out what happens in certain circumstances, eg something that prevents performance.
It means the parties are taking control of the circumstances rather than leaving it to the courts.
It’s attractive as it gives greater flexibility when making contracts, which means if both parties disagree with the law, they can have a force majeure contract and not be under the legal obligation.
What can a party do if it knows it could lose money in certain circumstances? Same as card 1
Some contracts make specific provisions, a contractual provision, for the type of event which might otherwise frustrate a contract, and usually this involves allocating the risk to one party or the other. Sometimes a contract contains ‘force majeure’ clause, which exempts one or both parties from liability if they are prevented from fulfilling contractional obligations due to an extraordinary event outside their control, such as natural disasters or outbreak of war.
