{"id":2392,"date":"2018-08-12T13:29:54","date_gmt":"2018-08-12T13:29:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/askanacademic.com\/uncategorized\/frustration-contract-law-117\/"},"modified":"2019-09-20T12:36:50","modified_gmt":"2019-09-20T12:36:50","slug":"frustration-contract-law-117","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/askanacademic.com\/law\/frustration-contract-law-117\/","title":{"rendered":"What is frustration in contract law?"},"content":{"rendered":"
What is frustration in contract law?<\/p>\n
Frustration of a contract occurs when without fault of either party, a contractual obligation is rendered impossible or radically different to that envisaged on agreement to the terms (Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban DC). The result is that both parties are discharged of their obligations (Murray, 2014).<\/p>\n
There are well-established rules as to when frustration may occur: when the subject matter has been destroyed (Taylor v Caldwell); when the contract becomes illegal to perform, such as in the Metropolitian Water Board case where the government declared the construction illegal; and when one party to the contract is unable to complete obligations due to death\/illness and the performance can only be undertaken by that individual (Hall v Wright).<\/p>\n
The non-occurrence of an event may also frustrate a contract, but this is very circumstantial and will be dependent on the \u201cfoundation\u201d of the contract (Krell v Henry; Herne Bay Steam Boat).<\/p>\n
There are limitations to the doctrine, for example, if the frustration is self-induced, as in the Maritime National Fish case. The courts have been known to construe self-inducement widely. The doctrine will also not operate for a mere delay, there must be a radical change of obligations (Murray, 2014).<\/p>\n
Murray, R., (2014) Contract Law. Third Edition, Sweet & Maxwell.<\/p>\n
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban DC [1956] AC 696<\/p>\n
Hall v Wright (1859) 120 ER 695<\/p>\n
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826<\/p>\n
Metropolitian Water Board v Dick Kerr & Co Ltd [1918] AC 119<\/p>\n
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740<\/p>\n
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683<\/p>\n
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A brief overview of the frustration in contract law. The definition, effect and leading cases will be considered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1938,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n