FRUSTRATION
Frustration is characterized as a series of unforeseeable occurrences that happen without fault
on the part of either party, leading to non-performance of the contract or a significantly
different performance from the original expectations set forth in the agreement. The concept
of frustration is assessed through a multifaceted approach, granting parties release from their
future obligations while not absolving them from past commitments. Damages are typically
not recoverable in cases of frustration, as neither party can be held accountable for the
situation. According to N.R Weiskoff, the doctrine of frustration enables a contract to be
terminated due to an intervening event, allowing the affected party to be exempt from
fulfilling the contractual terms.
Traditionally, the "strict freedom of contract approach" describes that when parties enter
into a contract then they freely suppose the risk that performance may become impossible
irrespective of the cause which means that if performance becomes impossible, whether due
to deliberate action or unforeseen circumstances, it is considered a breach of contract but
contractual obligations are absolute and parties are obligated to perform regardless of
obstacles that may arise.
Court held that the tenant is liable for failing to pay rent even though his incapability
to do so was due to his land being invaded during wartime that is strict decision which
reflects the original stance of common law on contractual obligations [Paradine v
Jane (1647)].
The strict approach is criticized by many judges as it is unfair because both parties are
innocent and the performance is impossible due to subsequent event that is out of control
from both parties. Courts make a significant departure from the strict approach to flexible
approach of contractual impossibility as Blackburn J held that the devastation of the music
hall terminated the contract and discharge both of the parties from any additional promises
under it [Taylor v Caldwell (1863)]. The main purpose behind this decision was the
acknowledgement of an "implied condition" in the contract concerning the presence of the
music hall. Basically, the court implied a term into the contract that the foremost subject
matter which is the music hall in the above case that should continue to exist for the contract
, to be enforceable. When this subject matter does not exist due to the fire, it frustrated the
purpose of the contract and both of the parties were discharged from foster performance.
The doctrine of frustration normally covers on very narrow terms.
There are initialy two reasons for this as first is that the principle of
frustration does not protect a specific party normally when he has made
a bad bargain. This was explained in the decision of Davis Contractors v
Fareham. The second reason for the narrowness of the doctrine is because the
future is uncertain and there could be a sudden increase or decrease in prices
due to inflation. The court in such situations does not wish to impose frustration
as then a very wide range of cases would be frustrated. So, clauses such as the
force majeure clause are important in such contracts as they wish to prepare or
predict about the situations in the future which could not frustrate the contract.
Other types of clauses include the hardship and intervener clauses. The
advantage of such clauses is that they help prepare the parties for future events,
provides with a greater degree of certainty and is a wider concept.
In the 20th century, courts marked a departure from the earlier dependance on implied
terms to address frustration and highlights a more nuanced consideration of the situations
surrounding the contract and the intentions of the parties involved. House of Lords,
predominantly in the decisions of Lord Reid and Viscount Radcliffe interpreted the concept
of implied terms in frustrated contracts and expressed uncertainty about the concept that there
is always an implied term covering circumstances of frustration by considering it somewhat
artificial or fictional [Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council (1956)].
Their analysis proposed that the courts should prevent automatically implying terms into
contracts to cover unforeseen events. In its place, they suggest that the attention should be on
the intention of the parties at the time of contract and whether the frustrating event falls
within the extent of that intention.
Lord Sands describes modern approach as when unforeseen circumstances happen after the
formation of a contract and these circumstances make performance unmanageable,
illegitimate, or substantially unusual from what the parties initially anticipated then the
fairness demands that the courts acknowledge the contract as terminated describes [James
Frustration is characterized as a series of unforeseeable occurrences that happen without fault
on the part of either party, leading to non-performance of the contract or a significantly
different performance from the original expectations set forth in the agreement. The concept
of frustration is assessed through a multifaceted approach, granting parties release from their
future obligations while not absolving them from past commitments. Damages are typically
not recoverable in cases of frustration, as neither party can be held accountable for the
situation. According to N.R Weiskoff, the doctrine of frustration enables a contract to be
terminated due to an intervening event, allowing the affected party to be exempt from
fulfilling the contractual terms.
Traditionally, the "strict freedom of contract approach" describes that when parties enter
into a contract then they freely suppose the risk that performance may become impossible
irrespective of the cause which means that if performance becomes impossible, whether due
to deliberate action or unforeseen circumstances, it is considered a breach of contract but
contractual obligations are absolute and parties are obligated to perform regardless of
obstacles that may arise.
Court held that the tenant is liable for failing to pay rent even though his incapability
to do so was due to his land being invaded during wartime that is strict decision which
reflects the original stance of common law on contractual obligations [Paradine v
Jane (1647)].
The strict approach is criticized by many judges as it is unfair because both parties are
innocent and the performance is impossible due to subsequent event that is out of control
from both parties. Courts make a significant departure from the strict approach to flexible
approach of contractual impossibility as Blackburn J held that the devastation of the music
hall terminated the contract and discharge both of the parties from any additional promises
under it [Taylor v Caldwell (1863)]. The main purpose behind this decision was the
acknowledgement of an "implied condition" in the contract concerning the presence of the
music hall. Basically, the court implied a term into the contract that the foremost subject
matter which is the music hall in the above case that should continue to exist for the contract
, to be enforceable. When this subject matter does not exist due to the fire, it frustrated the
purpose of the contract and both of the parties were discharged from foster performance.
The doctrine of frustration normally covers on very narrow terms.
There are initialy two reasons for this as first is that the principle of
frustration does not protect a specific party normally when he has made
a bad bargain. This was explained in the decision of Davis Contractors v
Fareham. The second reason for the narrowness of the doctrine is because the
future is uncertain and there could be a sudden increase or decrease in prices
due to inflation. The court in such situations does not wish to impose frustration
as then a very wide range of cases would be frustrated. So, clauses such as the
force majeure clause are important in such contracts as they wish to prepare or
predict about the situations in the future which could not frustrate the contract.
Other types of clauses include the hardship and intervener clauses. The
advantage of such clauses is that they help prepare the parties for future events,
provides with a greater degree of certainty and is a wider concept.
In the 20th century, courts marked a departure from the earlier dependance on implied
terms to address frustration and highlights a more nuanced consideration of the situations
surrounding the contract and the intentions of the parties involved. House of Lords,
predominantly in the decisions of Lord Reid and Viscount Radcliffe interpreted the concept
of implied terms in frustrated contracts and expressed uncertainty about the concept that there
is always an implied term covering circumstances of frustration by considering it somewhat
artificial or fictional [Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council (1956)].
Their analysis proposed that the courts should prevent automatically implying terms into
contracts to cover unforeseen events. In its place, they suggest that the attention should be on
the intention of the parties at the time of contract and whether the frustrating event falls
within the extent of that intention.
Lord Sands describes modern approach as when unforeseen circumstances happen after the
formation of a contract and these circumstances make performance unmanageable,
illegitimate, or substantially unusual from what the parties initially anticipated then the
fairness demands that the courts acknowledge the contract as terminated describes [James
