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

        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. where there was a possibility a building could be listed or that permission would be unobtainable was foreseen, or there was a provision to handle it with a force majeure clause, it would be held there can be no release from the contract, but if the clause does not cover the event specifically in question, frustration may still be claimed like in The Fibrosa case in 1943. The last one would be that if there was a clause stating that the contract will go through in any circumstances; this would prevent frustration from happening even though there was an intervening event.

        However, due to the problem of when the frustrating events occur, both parties may end up in unequal positions and receive different justice depending on how the doctrine is applied as it might end up causing a benefit to one party while causing the other party a detriment as due to the doctrine the contract is immediately discharged from the time of the event. In addition, as the effects from the doctrine is determined at which point the contract is held to be frustrated, there is no beneficial sharing of loss too as one party would usually have more to lose out on.

        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.