Intro: The essay/problem/dilemma involves the Law on Frustration, which is an aspect that discharges a contract, and this refers to the ending of all obligations. Frustration has been defined as an unforseen event which is beyond the control of either party and ... makes further performance either illegal, impossible or radically different from that originally contemplated, the contract will come to an end.
History/Origine of Doctrine: Before the doctrine was developed, the old common law rule was that no unforseen event would frustrate the contract. CASE: "Paradine v Jane". In this case Paradine sued for rent, but Jane's defence was that he'd been forced off the land due to an invading army. HELD: He had to pay the rent ... No Frustration.
AO2: This is a strict and harsh rule as it can cause injustice. Therefore, judges developed the law of frustration.
Illegality: 2 main ways a contract can be deemed illegal - If the governent passes a law to make trade illegal or war.
CASE: "The Fibrosa". In this case there was a contract between an English and Polish company, but England and Poland went to war. HELD: This frustrated the contract.
If a major part of the contract is frustrated then it is all frustrated CASE: "Metropolitan Water Board v Kerr". In this case a contract was made in 1914 for the construction of a reservoir and a water works and the work should be completed over a 6-year period. In 1916 a governement order stopped much of the work. HELD: Frustrated as main part of the contract was frustrated so this frustrated the whole contract.