Place Order

> Free Law Essays

PRINT REFERENCE THIS

This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by
our professional essay writers.

Published: Fri, 02 Feb 2018

The doctrine of frustration

The principle of freedom to contract is a founding principle upon which the world of commercial
contracts operates. This strictly means that the parties to a contract are free to agree on their own
rights and obligations to be included in their agreement.

Problems can occur however, when the bargain struck is no longer possible to achieve, or, in other
words, where one party is prevented from, or unable to, carryout his/her obligations under the
contract due to a supervening event beyond their control. As a result, a doctrine has accordingly
emerged in the law of contract to provide for situations where such an eventuality occurs.

Under the doctrine of frustration, a promisor is relieved of any liability under a contractual
agreement in the event of a breach of contract where a party to the agreement is prevented from, or
unable to, perform his/her obligations under the agreement, due to some event which occurs, which
was outside of their sphere of control. In such circumstances, the law deems it unfair to compel the
injured party to comply with the terms of the agreement. Hence, the law relieves this person from
their obligations by regarding the contract as frustrated for all purposes.

This essay first explores the development of the doctrine of frustration before providing the
circumstances which qualify the doctrine of frustration. The work shall also proceed to explain the
implications of a decision that a contract has been frustrated. Finally, the Conclusion summarizes
the information pertaining to the doctrine of frustration and considering the information in light of
Lord Simon’s dictum outlined above.

Development of the Doctrine

The doctrine of frustration in contract law was initially defined by two points, namely: (i) the doctrine
was to be only permitted where it was raised as a defence to a primary assumption on which the
agreement was reached; and (ii) the parties were entitled to insert provisions as a contingency
Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services
measure to provide for the occurrence of the same. ×
In a notable case from the seventh century [1] , it is apparent that events which were outside the
control of either party had no effect on the parties’ obligations to each other. This position was not
regarded as satisfactory, however, and the courts soon addressed this by implying terms into a
contract by finding that conditions ought to be implied into a contract where:
Place an order
“from the nature of the contract it is apparent that the parties contracted on the basis of the
continued existence of the particular person or chattel” [2] .
or

The position which hitherto applied in Paradine v. Jane (1647) Aleya 26 was distinguished on the
Learn about our
premise that that principle applied only to circumstances involving positive contracts, in which
services
performance was guaranteed. The doctrine steadily began to grow due to the courts’ willingness to
imply terms into a contract. However, this position was not deemed satisfactory by some members
of the judiciary. In particular, in the case of Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham UDC [1956] 2 All ER
145, Lord Radcliffe and Lord Reid expressed their disapproval with the manner in which terms were
being implied into contracts. Lord Radcliffe in particular stated, inter alia, that:

“There is something of a logical difficulty in seeing how the parties could even impliedly have
provided for something which ex hypothesi, they neither expected not foresaw.”

It was accordingly felt by their Lordships that there ought to be another basis for the doctrine of
frustration. In this regard, it was stated (by Lord Radcliffe) that:

“.. it would be simpler to say at the outset that frustration occurs whenever the law recognizes that,
without default of either party, a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed
because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it s thing radically
different from that which was undertaken by the contract.” [3] 

Evidently, this position provided a more objective approach to that hitherto taken, as it included
considerations other than those of the parties’ sole intentions: see Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries
(1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206.

The law in this area was extended further by the case of Liverpool City Council v. Irwin [1976] 2 All
ER 39, in which it was subsequently found that in circumstances in which the courts regarded it as
necessary to imply a term into a contract, resulting in a contract becoming frustrated, it shall do so
only by law. The doctrine accordingly became a question of law for the courts to determine, as
opposed to one of fact.

Further developments came in National Carriers Ltd v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675,
where the courts devised a ‘modern test’ for assessing whether or not the doctrine of frustration
ought to apply [4] . In accordance with this test, the courts adopt an approach whereby they seek to
interpret the contract in light of the surrounding circumstances. This approach is aimed at
Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services
discerning the parties’ true intentions when entering the contract. The rationale is that the court ×
shall then be better placed to conduct an assessment of contract in order to conclude whether or
not the supervening events had changed.

It ought to also be mentioned here that it is not the change in circumstances so much that invokes
the doctrine of frustration, but it is the ‘radical’ change in the obligations, as found in the form of the
terms of the contract, which instigates thePlace an order
application of the doctrine.

The position was consummately summed up by Lord

or Radcliffe in the case of Davis Contractors,
where it was said that:
Learn about our
“…..it is not hardship or inconvenience or material loss itself which calls the principle of frustration
services
into play. There must be as well such a change in the significance of the obligation that the thing
undertaken would, if performed, be a different thing from that contracted for.”

Also helpful in understanding this test are the comments by Lord Simon, who stated as follows:

“Frustration of a contract takes place when there supervenes an event (without default of either
party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision) which so significantly changes the
nature (not merely the expense or onerousness) of the outstanding contractual rights and / or
obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the time of its execution
that is would be unjust to hold them to the literal sense of its stipulations in the new circumstances;
in such a case the law declares both parties to be discharged from further performances.” [5] 

Application of the Doctrine

The application of the doctrine of frustration can arise in a variety of situations. The body of case
law on the subject, however, illustrates that there are typical situations in which the doctrine arises.
Most commonly, the doctrine arises in situations in which there is an inability to perform the
contract due to the subject-matters destruction or unavailability: see Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B &
S 826.

In circumstances which adversely affect the availability of the subject-matter required to perform
the contract, the period of its unavailability is of paramount importance in assessing whether or not
the doctrine of frustration is applicable. For instance, a lengthy period would result in the doctrine
applying, whereas a short period is unlikely to result in the doctrine becoming applicable. However, it
ought to be mentioned that in the case of Conder v. The Baron Knights Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 87, the
court found that frustration had occurred despite there being no actual breach of contract, and
therefore no incidence of unavailability. The facts of the case were that a musician was contracted
to perform seven days a week, but feel ill, and contrary to professional advice, he continued to
perform seven days a week. The court found that due to his precarious state of health, his health
could have deteriorated at any time, which would have necessitated the acquisition of another
Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services
musician. ×
A further example of the approach the court shall take when considering the effect of a delay in the
ability to perform a contract due to a supervening event, can be observed in The Evia [1983] 1 AC
736 [6] .

Furthermore, if there is a non-occurrence of an event, which is integral to the contract, and this
Place an order
renders the contract pointless, then the court is likely to find that a frustration has occurred. In order
for this to be satisfied, however, it is essential thatora distinction is drawn between the incident
directed to the object of the contract and the motive for entering the contract: see Krell v. Henry
Learn
[1903] 2 KB 740 [7] . Furthermore, if a party about
is under our
an obligation to perform specified tasks in
accordance with the terms of the contract, and they are unable, or it becomes impossible, to do so,
services
the contract is deemed to be frustrated. Albeit, it ought to be mentioned that under this requirement,
only a failure to comply with a obligatory expression in the form of a term is going to amount to a
frustration, as opposed to a mere intimation that a performance is expected.

In Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd v. Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93 [8] , it was held that the freight
contracts were not frustrated as the specific manner of the performance of the contract, specifically
pertaining to the route to be taken by ships through the Suez Canal, which had been closed, had not
been expressly stipulated in the contract.

Further, the House of Lords found, in National Carriers Ltd Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675
that frustration can also apply in the case of leases of land, albeit it was noted that this is a rare
occurrence. It was specifically mentioned that this is only likely to occur, however, where the parties
had expressed a specific intention to lease the land for a specified purpose, which later becomes
impossible to achieve due to an event which is outside the control of the parties. In this regard, Lord
Wilberforce articulated this as follows:

“A man may desire possession and use of land or buildings for, and only for, some purpose in view
and mutually contemplated…. In such a case the lease, or the conferring of an estate, is a subsidiary
means to an end, not an aim or end of itself.”

Issues Affecting the Operation of the Doctrine

There are a variety of issues which can prevent the doctrine of frustration from occurring. Firstly,
where one party is found to have been negligent, the doctrine shall not apply. However, negligence
per se does not strictly prevent frustration from occurring, as it is for the person claiming frustration
to provide proof of the same.

In addition, if it is found that the incident which is supposed to have been outside of the control of
the parties was, in fact, a consequence of the actions of a party, the doctrine cannot apply: see
Maritime National Fish Ltd v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524 [9] .
Finally, in circumstances in which the event giving rise to the frustration is anticipated and provided
Law
for by Teacheracan
inserting show
force you how
majeure to write
clause into agreat academic
contractual work with
agreement, our 3.9 star
frustration rated
shall notservices ×
apply. This
is the case, however, only if the said clause adequately covers all eventualities, if the supervening
event should occur: see Jackson v. Union Marine insurance Co. Ltd (1874) LR 10 CP 125.

Conclusion

Having considered the rules pertaining to the doctrine of frustration, Lord Simon’s obiter dictum in
Place an order
British Movietonews Ltd. v. London and District Cinemas [10] is correct only in so far as the
requirements for the doctrine of frustration do notorapply in the case at hand. As noted above, if the
‘test’ is satisfied, and the rules of frustration apply, the implication for the contract is that it is
Learn
terminated forthwith, thereby relieving the about
parties of theirour
former contractual obligations.
services
In the case where frustration is found, the injured party does not benefit from having the option to
select whether or not to opt for a breach of contract or otherwise (see Hirji Mulji v. Cheong Yue
Steamship Co. [1926] AC 497). The decision is arbitrary and automatic in that frustration renders a
contract terminated forthwith.

At common law, the situation regarding the law pertaining to frustration is somewhat in a state of
flux. In Chandler v. Webster [1904] 1 KB 493, the court relieved the parties form all future contractual
obligations from the date when the supervening event first arose. However, this decision was
overruled by the House of Lords in Fibrosa Spoika Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd
[1943] AC 32, who shifted the burden of the onus of the frustration from the appellant, to the
respondent, by finding that there had been a total failure of consideration and allowing the
appellant’s claim.

The passing of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 has, however, gone some way to
addressing the unsatisfactory state of the law. However, it ought to be noted that the Act only
applies to the consequences of a frustration, once found, and deals specifically with the following:
the recovery of money paid or payable under the agreement; compensation payable for expenses
incurred in performing the contract; and, financial readjustment where a party has received a
valuable benefit despite not having made any payment [11] .

Finally, Lord Simon’s comments are correct that unanticipated events alone do not ‘affect the
bargain which they have made…’ [12] and, as Lord Radcliffe rightly pointed out in the Davis case, ‘it is
not hardship, or inconvenience or material loss itself which calls the principle of frustration into
play’, but it can categorically be said that once a contract is found to have been frustrated, the
bargain between the parties is at an end.

Cite This Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
OSCOLA APA MLA MLA-7 Harvard Vancouver Wikipedia
Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services ×
All Answers ltd, 'The doctrine of frustration' (Lawteacher.net, February 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-doctrine-of-frustration-contract-
law-essay.php?vref=1> accessed 21 February 2019

Place an order
COPY TO CLIPBOARD
or

Learn about our

Need help with your work?
services
Find out more about our essay writing service:

ESSAY WRITING SERVICE

 Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services ×

Place an order

or

Learn about our

services

Dissertation Writing Service

Our Dissertation Writing service can help with everything from full dissertations to
individual chapters.

Marking Service

Our Marking Service will help you pick out the areas of your work that need
improvement.

All Writing Services

 Fully
Law Teacher can referenced,
show you howdelivered on time.
to write great Get thework
academic extrawith
support youstar
our 3.9 require
ratednow.
services ×

FREE OSCOLA Referencing

FREE Case Summaries

Place an order
FREE Act Summaries or

FREE Lecture Notes Learn about our

services
FREE Problem Question Examples

Request Removal
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the Law
Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay

More from Law Teacher

Law Essays

Examples of Our Work

We Write Bespoke Law Essays!

Find Out More

SERVICES
Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 3.9 star rated services ×
Law Essay Writing Service

Law Dissertation Writing Service

Law Assignment Writing Service

All Law Services Place an order

or
USEFUL RESOURCES
Learn about our
Law Essays
services
Case Summaries

Act Summaries

Problem Questions

OSCOLA Referencing Tool

LLM Resources

Law Help

Study Modules

COMPANY

About

Fair Use Policy

Complaints

Help Centre

Become a Researcher

Part of All Answers Ltd

Copyright © 2003 - 2019 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales.
Law Registration
Company Teacher can No: show youVAT
4964706. how to writeNo:
Registration great academic
842417633. work Data
Registered withController
our 3.9 No:
starZ1821391.
rated services ×
Registered
office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

Place an order
Cookies

or

Learn about our

services