• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Advising a Client : Contract Law

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

When advising A there are three fundamental questions that must be asked; Is the event capable of frustrating the contract? Are there any rules of law that would render the doctrine of frustration inoperative? What would be the effects if the contract were found frustrated? In addressing the first question it must be recognised that the hallmark of frustration is an event that occurs after the contract is formed that radically alters the foundation or renders it physically or legally impossible to perform. A simple example of this can be found in Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826 where a contract for hire of a music hall and gardens was found to be frustrated when the music hall burnt down. The object of the contract was ascertained as the hiring of the gardens and music hall for the purpose of using them to stage four 'grand concerts and fetes'. When the hall was destroyed by fire after the contract was formed, the performance was rendered physically impossible. Thus it is essential when considering frustration to identify the object of the contract and then to decide whether the intervening event radically alters this object. ...read more.

Middle

The next point to consider is whether there are any rules of law that would render the doctrine of frustration inoperative. Did either party foresee the supervening event, and could either party be assumed to have taken the risk that such an event might occur? It is rare that a party may seek to rely on an event that he has foreseen in order to claim frustration (see Walton Harvey Ltd v Walker & Homfrays Ltd (1931) 1 Ch 274). The reason for this is that in the absence of a provision in the contract to deal with such an event, one or other of the parties must be taken to have accepted the risk of its occurring. Therefore, the more foreseeable an event, the more allocation of risk occurs. The courts often distinguish between events that were foreseen and events that were foreseeable at the time of the contract. Where the events are foreseen the courts will usually find that a plea of frustration will fail. A rare exception to this approach can be found in the case of The Eugenia (1964) 2 QB 226 where Lord Denning MR found there was evidence that the parties intended 'to leave the lawyers to sort it out'. ...read more.

Conclusion

First it is not now necessary to prove a total failure of consideration, but more importantly where the payee has incurred expenses he may be allowed to offset the paid or payable sum by an amount not exceeding the expenses incurred when performing the contract before the frustration. It may be assumed in the present case that B has incurred considerable expense in the development of the equipment and it is likely that the court will find �5000 for three months work to be less than excessive recompense. On this point A should be advised that he might lose all of his deposit and may be required to pay even more. However, s 1(3) of the 1943 Act allows courts to award a 'just sum' where one party has obtained a valuable benefit under the contract. A can argue that clause four has conferred a valuable benefit on B by allowing him the extra business-generating kudos of being linked with A. There is little in the way of valuable benefit conferred on A that can offset this consideration, so it is contended that A may indeed recover some or all of the �5000 deposit depending on the value placed upon the valuable benefit by the court. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    The case of Waltons Stores v Maher [1988] might be more of an interest to the English courts in the sense that English and Australian Law have very much in common and so, decisions were held to be highly persuasive authority.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore (1866) On 8 June, the defendant offered to buy shares in the plaintiff company. On 23 Nov, the plaintiff accepted but the defendant no longer wanted them and refused to pay. It was held that the six-month delay between the offer in June and the acceptance in November was unreasonable and

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    Sumpter sued to recover the value of the word done and of the building materials used. Prevention of Performance: If an innocent party is prevented from completing his contractual obligations by the default of the other party, he can either recover damages for breach or seek reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis for the work already done.

  2. LAW OF CONTRACT. LAW 103. THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT.

    One must be careful, however, not to diminish the principle of the freedom of contract. Terms will be implied where it is necessary - not merely where it is reasonable. "An unexpressed term can be implied if, and only if, the court finds that the parties must have intended that

  1. Contract Law

    Options If the offeree provides consideration (eg paying money) to the offeror to keep the offer open for some period, the offer cannot be withdrawn during this period. If no consideration is paid, and only a promise to keep the offer is made, the offer may still be revoked (Routledge v Grant (1828)).

  2. DIFFEERENT AREAS OF CONTRACT LAW

    A case relevant to this is Robertson v Anderson (2002) in the Mecca bingo hall in Drum chapel where in bilateral obligations are that the parties owe duties to each other. Case study 2 Morag would not get the furniture as the auctioneer hammer had not fallen so the sale

  1. "There are occasions where terms are implied into contracts which have never been discussed ...

    In this case, the claimant was looking to purchase a stallion for stud purposes, and was examining a horse that was or sale at the defendants stables when the defendant said: "You need not look for anything: the horse of perfectly sound.

  2. Aspects of Contract and Business Law Case Studies

    Henry was the highest bidder in the case above, however Ben has refused to sell it to him at the price of £8100 because this is not Ben wanted. Ben has not reserved the auction therefore its Ben’s fault in this case.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work