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

The Legal Principle of Frustration has been limited by the Courts. Explain why and how this has been done

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Mark Lam JianHao Saturday, 12 March 2011 The Legal Principle of Frustration has been limited by the Courts. Explain why and how this has been done. Frustration is an event that occurs beyond the control of any parties in a contract that prevents either of the parties from performing their part in fulfilling the contract. However, this is a recent development as common law states that a party was bound to perform their obligations under contract regardless of intervening events and would override any circumstances as in the case of Paradine v Jane in 1647 where Jane had to pay rent even after being forced off the land due to an invasion. The doctrine was developed as a response for a party to discharge the contract due to unforeseeable situations that interrupt the contract. The result is that both parties would be relieved of the burden of performing and the liability for not performing. There are three main types of frustrating events; the first Impossibility is where the event makes performance impossible. ...read more.

Middle

Limitations would be where the event is not beyond the control of either party but rather a party chose to act so as to frustrate the contract, the courts will not treat the contract as discharged as in The Superservant Two in 1990 where one of the two barges sunk and the other was already occupied in another contract, it was held that it was not frustrated as the defendants had the other barge available but chose not to give it to the claimant. Another limitation would be where the event merely makes the contract harder to be performed and not unable to be performed as in Davis Contractors Ltd. v Fareham UDC in 1956 where due to events, the estate that would be built at a fixed price could only be done at a loss. Also should the frustrating event been foreseen or in contemplation of the parties as in Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. v John Walker and Sons Ltd. ...read more.

Conclusion

Furthermore, there is a Law Reform Act regarding Frustrated Contracts in 1943 to deal with the consequences of frustrating events covering three main areas, the recovery of money paid before the event, the recovery of work already completed and finical reward where a valuable benefit has been conferred. Section 1(2) gives the court discretions to provide some compensation for work under a contract but it is what the court deems fair and may not cover the expenses. Section 1(2) further confirms that money paid in advance is recoverable and that money due need not be paid. Lastly Section 1(3) allows a party that conferred a valuable benefit to the other party some form of payment as in BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd v Hunt; again this is up to the courts discretion. In conclusion, it seems that the although now people have a way to be discharged from continuing a contract, the court has the power to set the limit regarding how much compensation they can claim and this may not even cover the expense. It also shows how narrow the doctrine is as in the case of Superservant Two. ...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

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    It was held that this amounted to a counter-offer which the claimants had accepted by handling over the goods, and the contract therefore incorporated the defendant's and not the claimant's conditions. * The case give support to the so-called "last shot" doctrine - contract results on the terms of the

  2. e-commerce legal issues

    into a contract with the other party on stated terms, and in turn, if the other party accepts it, the agreement will be legally binding. English contract law does not require an offer is made in a particular form. Thus, offers can be made by distant communications such as fax, e-mail and World Wide Web.

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

    The parties were however obliged to fulfil any obligations that arose prior to the frustrating event, the view being that the "loss lay where it fell". Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651. The plaintiff contracted to erect machinery on the defendant's premises, the price to be paid upon completion of the whole.

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

    The charterers repudiated the charterparty. Question 4. Were the charterers entitled to do this? Apply the tests put forward by Lords Upjohn and Diplock set out overleaf. Upjohn LJ "It is open to the parties to make it clear that a particular stipulation is to be regarded as a condition

  1. Invitation To Treat

    of the decedent is distributed according to a formula fixed by law. In other words, if you don't make a Will, you don't have any say about how your property will be distributed. Such proceedings could cost a lot of money and could create legal problems that might have been avoided by making a Will.

  2. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    acceptance which suffices, then acceptance by some other means equally expeditious would constitute a valid acceptance: Tinn V Hoffmann 1873. A telegram or even a verbal message could be sufficient acceptance of an offer inviting acceptance 'by return of post'.

  1. Contract Practice for Alpha construction LTD.

    Ali Faizollahi (AF), Nikolaos Michalakis (NM) Agenda Items Item No. Details of issues to be discussed/objectives of discussions To be led by 1.0 Minutes of last meeting To agree the minutes of the meeting 17th February 2004 as an accurate record.

  2. DIFFEERENT AREAS OF CONTRACT LAW

    that it would not always have been permitted or the seller to withdraw from the auction in a similar circumstance. Relevant cases Fenwick v Macdonald, Fraser & Co Ltd (1904) - the pursuer made a bid for a bull that was part of a head of cattle sold at auction.

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