Frustration Answer Structure
Claire owned land on which she arranged outdoor events including tree climbing and zip-
wire experiences. Dylan agreed to pay Claire £2000 for himself and a party of friends to hire
the land for a day and enjoy the experiences. This also included food for the whole day.
Dylan paid £400 immediately, the remainder to be paid on the day of the event. Claire spent
£600 in preparation for the event. Two days before the event was to take place, wet
weather that had been forecast was upgraded to a severe storm. Claire was forced to cancel
the tree climbing and zip-wire experiences but said that she would still provide the food in
indoor accommodation.
Advise Dylan on whether he could succeed in claiming that the contract was frustrated
and advise him of the legal consequences if the contract was found to be frustrated.
Dylan may have a claim that the contract was frustrated.
Frustration occurs when an unforeseen event arises after the formation of the contract,
making performance impossible or radically different from what was agreed, through no
fault of either party. There are key elements that must be proven.
First, there must be an event that renders performance impossible or fundamentally
different (Taylor v Caldwell). The storm led to the cancellation of the tree climbing and zip-
wire experiences, which were the central features of the agreement. As Dylan and his
friends could no longer participate in these activities, this make performance impossible.
Next, the event must not be self-induced or foreseeable. Claire did not cause the storm, and
while wet weather was forecast, the severity was only upgraded to a severe storm two days
before the event. This suggests that the cancellation was due to an unforeseen event rather
than one that should have been anticipated.
Thirdly, the contract must be fundamentally changed due to the event (Krell v Henry). The
main purpose of the contract was to provide outdoor experiences, with food being a
subsidiary part. The cancellation of the activities may therefore mean the common venture
has been frustrated. However, Claire could argue that food was still available, meaning the
contract could still be partially performed, similar to Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton,
where frustration was denied as some of the contract’s purpose remained intact.
If the contract is found to be frustrated, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
applies.
Under s1(2), any money paid before frustration can be recovered, and money due but not
yet paid ceases to be payable. Dylan can claim back his £400 deposit, and he would not have
Claire owned land on which she arranged outdoor events including tree climbing and zip-
wire experiences. Dylan agreed to pay Claire £2000 for himself and a party of friends to hire
the land for a day and enjoy the experiences. This also included food for the whole day.
Dylan paid £400 immediately, the remainder to be paid on the day of the event. Claire spent
£600 in preparation for the event. Two days before the event was to take place, wet
weather that had been forecast was upgraded to a severe storm. Claire was forced to cancel
the tree climbing and zip-wire experiences but said that she would still provide the food in
indoor accommodation.
Advise Dylan on whether he could succeed in claiming that the contract was frustrated
and advise him of the legal consequences if the contract was found to be frustrated.
Dylan may have a claim that the contract was frustrated.
Frustration occurs when an unforeseen event arises after the formation of the contract,
making performance impossible or radically different from what was agreed, through no
fault of either party. There are key elements that must be proven.
First, there must be an event that renders performance impossible or fundamentally
different (Taylor v Caldwell). The storm led to the cancellation of the tree climbing and zip-
wire experiences, which were the central features of the agreement. As Dylan and his
friends could no longer participate in these activities, this make performance impossible.
Next, the event must not be self-induced or foreseeable. Claire did not cause the storm, and
while wet weather was forecast, the severity was only upgraded to a severe storm two days
before the event. This suggests that the cancellation was due to an unforeseen event rather
than one that should have been anticipated.
Thirdly, the contract must be fundamentally changed due to the event (Krell v Henry). The
main purpose of the contract was to provide outdoor experiences, with food being a
subsidiary part. The cancellation of the activities may therefore mean the common venture
has been frustrated. However, Claire could argue that food was still available, meaning the
contract could still be partially performed, similar to Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton,
where frustration was denied as some of the contract’s purpose remained intact.
If the contract is found to be frustrated, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
applies.
Under s1(2), any money paid before frustration can be recovered, and money due but not
yet paid ceases to be payable. Dylan can claim back his £400 deposit, and he would not have
