Gen'lly changes post formation don't affect obligation to perform
Bad's breach relieves Good of obligation to perform
Anticipatory Breach
1st attempt to give relief was to imply a term into the contract
Breach
Frustration
Substantial Breach
Amendment supported by consideration
Agreement
Promissory estoppel
Paradine v Jane 1647
Taylor v Caldwell 1863
Four ways
More recently
Blackburn LJ
Concept of frustration imposed by gen' law of contract
Davis Contractors v Fareham '56
Therefore no need to imply term
Radcliffe L
Performance
Frustration
Taylor v Caldwell '56
Appleby v Myers 1867
S7 Sale of Goods Act
Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue SS '26, HL
No need to elect
Sumner L
Appleby v Myers 1867
Frustration automatic
A. Physical destruction
of subject matter
Don't perform those arising post-event
Cutter v Powell 1795
May have efect of creating Total
Failure of Consideration
Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn '43
Lord Simon LC
Deduction for expenses
Howell v Coupland 1876
-s1(2)
Benefits conferred recoverable
-s1(3)
Frustration Remedies
Frustration usually involves loss
Enrichment removed to part'lly compensate
Rare case where gain
Enrichment partially used to compensate
B. Failure of
common venture
Can't just be > difficult or > expensive
Unjust
enrichment
If delay beyond
control of parties
Ending Obligations
- Frustration
BPP Exploration v Hunt '79
Vaughan Williams LJ
Provided it makes performance smthg radically different than contemplated
C. Delay
From date of frustrating event
Judge extent of delay
Tempting to use trial date as extent of delay
Tamplin SS v Anglo-Mexican Petrol '16, HL
Pioneer Shipping v BTP Tioxide '82, HL
If illegality is trading w/ enemy
Impracticality
D. Subsequent illegality
Reluctance to frustrate contract creating an estate in land
Nat'l Carriers v Panalpina '81, HL
Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera '20
Performer's death frustrates contract
As a rule of law
The Eugenia '64, CA
Foreseeability
As aid to construction
Blackburn J
- Breach of condition allowing employer to be relieved of contract
Condor v Barron Knights '66
E. Death or incapacity
Fault could be making choice
that makes perf. impossible
Fault or Choice
This work is based on the lectures of John Halladay and is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
Taylor v Caldwell
Robinson v Davison 1871
- Frustration
Analyse as either:
Choice denies frustration
Party has choice
to perform
Stubbs v Holywell Ry Co 1867
Illness lasting over time of performance will frustrate contract
Add'l
Factors
Party can't cause it
Fault irrelevant
Treated as delay to the end of the war
Denny, Mott v James Fraser '44, HL
Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn '43, HL
Land
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC
Amalgamated Investment v Walker '76, CA
Romer LJ
Jackson v Union Marine Ins. 1874
Ocean Tramp Tankers Co v V/O Sovracht, The Eugenia '64, CA
Ending Obligations-Frustration.mmp
Krell v Henry '03
Can frustrate contract
Performance must be radically different
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC
Maritime Nat'l Fish v
Ocean Trawlers '35, PC
- Even if performance possible
If agree to sole purpose of contract and
circumstances make purpose impossible:
Statute
Frustrating
Events
Denning MR
Pickford LJ
- Contract can be frustrated
08/01/2007 - v18
Joseph Constantine SS v
Imperial Smelting '42, HL
>> Far easier to frustrate the contract
Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton '03
Loss not split
Radcliffe L
- Source of goods supplied
Blackburn Bobbin v TW Allen '18
$ paid recoverable
Deduction for expenses
Where contract
contains restriction on:
Common law
Relief fr
obligations
- Performance method
Criteria for
employment
contract
frustration
Young drummer, couldn't work 7/7
Set out in Marshall v Harland & Wolff '72
A
B
C
D
E