Frustration

TAYLOR v CADWELL (1863) -Impossibility (destruction of subject matter)

It was apparent the parties had contracted on the basis that the subject matter was going to continue to exist ( burning down of the music hall)

1 of 20

CONDOR v BARRON KNIGHTS (1966) - Impossibility ( incapacity to perform personal services)

His medical condition prevented him (made it impossible) to perform his contractual obligations

2 of 20

CTI GROUP INCORP v TRANSCLEAR SA, THE MARY NOUR (2008) - Exception to impossibility by destruction of the subject matter

If a supplier decided not to make unascertained goods available for shipment, thereby making performance by the seller of goods to the buyer impossible, this itself wasn't sufficient enough to frustrate a contract (not applicable for specific goods)

3 of 20

KRELL v HENRY (1903) - Radically Different (non-occurrence rendering the contract pointless)

Frustrated (of its commercial purpose), the claimant couldn't receive the rest of the money as the renting of the flat and it's specific position(viewing the procession) was an objective of the contract

4 of 20

HERNE BAY STEAMBOAT CO. v HUTTON (1903) - Radically Different

Not frustrated, the fleet remained anchored so it was still possible to use the vessel for its commercial purpose and the defendant intended to charge the passengers, the hire price was thus fully payable.

5 of 20

THE EUGENIA (1964) - Inability to comply with the specified manner of performance

Moving their ships through the Suez Canal wasn't specified in their contract. The fact that the cost to ship it any other was substantially increased wasn't a frustrating event

6 of 20

DAVIS CONTRACTORS LTD v FAREHAM UDC (1956)

It is not the hardship or inconvenience or material loss that calls the principle of frustration to play

7 of 20

PIONEER SHIPPING LTD v BTP TIOXIDE LTD, THE NEMA (1981) - Radically Different ( a delay in performing the contract caused by some frustrating event)

Contract was frustrated since the degree of capable performance was inordinately small compared to that which was envisaged

8 of 20

DENNY, MOTT AND DICKSON LTD v JAMES B. FRASER & CO LTD (1944) - Supervening Illegality

Contract was frustrated because the Control of Timber Order Act 1939 rendered this type of contract illegal. Lord Macmillan stated that a contract that has become illegal to do cannot legally be enforcable

9 of 20

MARITIME NATIONAL FISH v OCEAN TRAWLERS (1938) - Self-induced frustration

The claimant had the discretion to nominate one of his three licences to the defendants vessel, so the supervening event was self induced

10 of 20

SUPER SERVANT 2 (1990) - Negligence being self induced frustration ( questioned in the case Joseph Constantine ** CO v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd (1941)

The contract was not frustrated due to negligence of the defendant, and the contract didn't specify that a specific ship would have to be used to transport the rig

11 of 20

JACKSON v UNION MARINE INSURANCE CO LTD (1874) - Force Majeure Clauses

Although Jackson had insurance to cover 'perils at sea', the clause didn't cover damages/delays of such an extensive nature

12 of 20

TSAKIROGLOU V NOBLEE (1962) - More difficult or Expensive

There was no frustration (like the Eugenia) because it was still possible to transport the nuts via a different route other than the Suez Canal. It was only sufficiently more expensive and difficult

13 of 20

HIRIJI MULJI v CHEONG YUE STEAMSHIP (1926) - Legal effect of Frustration

The effect of frustration is to bring about immediate termination of all obligations under that contract

14 of 20

CHANDLER V WEBSTER (1904) - Common law originally only allowed the parties to be released of obligations at the time of frustration and onwards, they were unable to claim anything back prior to the frustrating event

In FIBROSA SPOLKA AKCYJNA v FAIRBAIRN LAWSON COMBER BARBOUR LTD (1942) this harsh common law rule was distinguished due to the total failure of consideration, the claimant was able to recover £1000 of what had been paid

15 of 20

Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act (1943)

This was passed to fairly prevent 'the unjust enrichment' of either party at the others expense

16 of 20

Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act (1943) - S1 (2) (Recovery of money paid)

Party can make a claim for the money paid to the defendant prior to the frustrating, relieves the party from paying any remaining money that was due prior to the event, courts have no discretion over if that money is recoverable (only on expenses)

17 of 20

GAMERCO SA v ICM/FAIR WARNING (AGENCY) LTD (1995)

The courts have a wide discretion to make a deduction in order to offset the defendants expenses prior to the frustration

18 of 20

Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act (1943) - S1 (3) Financial Readjustment where a valuable benefit is conferred before time of discharge

Claims under this subsection pay regard to identifying and valuing any benefit obtained (non-monetary = end product/services), and assessing what a just sum would be (not exceeding the valuable benefit)

19 of 20

BP EXPLORATION v HUNT (1982)

Goff J tates that the valuable benefit refers to the end product itself and not the services, which is controversial as this section only applies before the time of discharge, he said deductions should be taken from the value of benefit

20 of 20

Get Revising

Frustration

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: