Understanding Contract Frustration
Uploaded by
Tyler ReneeUnderstanding Contract Frustration
Uploaded by
Tyler ReneeCommon questions
Powered by AIIn Krell v Henry, the contract to rent a room during the King's coronation was frustrated when the coronation was canceled, as the main purpose was to view the event, rendering the room rental purposeless . Conversely, in Herne Bay Steamboat Company v Hutton, the boat tour contract was not frustrated when a naval review tied to the coronation was postponed. The court determined the tour retained value beyond the review, maintaining the contract's purpose . Thus, frustration depends on whether the changing circumstances nullify the core purpose of the agreement for both parties .
A contract is unlikely to be considered frustrated if difficulties in performance arise that do not make it impossible but merely more challenging or costly. For instance, in Davis Contractors v Fareham, increased costs and delays were insufficient for frustration as they did not alter the contract’s fundamental nature . Additionally, unforeseen events like temporary unavailability of a customary route, as in the Tsakiroglou case, where an alternative was viable, do not suffice to claim frustration . Contracts remain binding unless a matter entirely prevents performance or alters the contracted objectives radically .
In Morgan v Manser, the artist's conscription into the army rendered him incapable of fulfilling his performance contract, leading to a holding of frustration due to unavoidable incapacity . Similarly, Condor v Barron Knights involved a musician whose health condition precluded full contractual performance, resulting in a finding of frustration, as meeting contractual terms became impossible due to medical advice . Both cases highlight how personal incapacity that definitively prevents performance can justify a contract's termination under the frustration doctrine .
In Davis Contractors v Fareham, the contractor's costs rose due to increased labor and material expenses, prolonging the project and exceeding the budget. The court found that while the circumstances made performance more difficult, they did not meet the threshold of 'impossibility' for a frustrated contract because it was not radically different from what was contemplated . This illustrates that frustration does not cover cases of increased difficulty or onerous performance unless it becomes impossible .
To determine whether a lease can be frustrated, courts consider if a supervening event fundamentally defeats the lease's original purpose. In National Carriers v Panalpina, access to a leased warehouse was blocked for 18 months, but the lease was not frustrated as it was long-term (10 years), suggesting temporary inconvenience doesn't suffice . The House of Lords acknowledged the potential for frustration in leases but noted it would typically apply only if the sole purpose becomes impossible, such as in short-term leases for specific events that are nullified .
In Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr, the government's wartime order in 1915 to halt reservoir construction represented an external force causing frustration, as it rendered contract performance legally and logistically impossible . This case exemplifies how government actions, unforeseen during contract formation, can alter the conditions under which a contract can be executed, leading to frustration. Courts assess if such interventions eliminate the possibility of upholding contractual obligations, highlighting the doctrine's role in addressing externalities beyond contractual control .
Supervening illegality frustrates a contract when a new law makes the agreed action illegal after the contract's formation. For instance, in Denny v James Fraser, a wartime government order on timber control prohibited delivery, thus frustrating the contract as performance became illegal . The government's intervention made fulfilling contractual obligations legally impossible, illustrating the doctrine's application when legal circumstances change unexpectedly .
The doctrine of 'absolute obligation' required parties to fulfill their contractual terms regardless of unforeseen events, as illustrated by Paradine v Jane, where Jane was held liable to pay rent even without access to the land due to war . In contrast, the doctrine of 'frustration' allows contracts to be terminated if an unforeseen event renders the performance impossible, exemplified by Taylor v Caldwell, where a fire destroyed a music hall, and the contract was held to be frustrated . Thus, 'frustration' provides a legal escape in situations of supervening impossibility that 'absolute obligation' does not accommodate .
The doctrine of frustration evolved from legal rigidity seen in Paradine v Jane, where absolute contractual obligations were enforced irrespective of external changes . The turning point came with Taylor v Caldwell, which recognized frustration due to unforeseen events rendering performance impossible, establishing judicial acknowledgment of supervening impossibility as a contract terminator . Further development occurred in Krell v Henry, emphasizing frustration when the contract's central purpose is defeated, indicating a shift towards equitable solutions in contract law . This evolution represents a movement from rigid adherence to literal contract terms towards flexibility accommodating unforeseen circumstances .
A fundamental alteration requires demonstrating that a supervening event radically changes the contract's basis, rendering its purpose unachievable. The Tsakiroglou case illustrates this point, as delivery failure due to a blocked route wasn't seen as fundamental since an alternative existed, maintaining the contract's purpose . Contracts are frustrated when a mutual purpose is impossible or drastically different from the original intent, as seen in Krell v Henry, where the event's cancellation nullified the contract's commercial aim . Thus, both parties must suffer a material change in the contract's aim for frustration to apply .