The doctrine of frustration

Authors Avatar

Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; 122 ER 309 (QB)

In this case the defendants had entered into a contract on May 27, 1861, by which the defendants (Caldwell) agreed to let the plaintiffs (Taylor) have use of the Surrey Gardens and Music Hall on four future days, these being June 17th, July 15th, August 5th and August 19th.  The Hall was to be used to host a series of four grand concerts and day and night fetes at the Gardens and Hall and the plaintiffs agreed to take the Gardens and Hall on those days, and pay £100 per day.

After the making of the agreement, on June 11th, 6 days before the first day of the events, the Hall was destroyed by fire. This destruction was without the fault of either party and was so complete that in consequence, the concerts could not be given as intended.

Join now!

When framing their agreement, the parties had not considered the occurrence of such events and as such had no express stipulation with reference to it.

The plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of moneys spent for advertising and other preparations for the concerts.

It was held, as stated by Lord Blackburn, that the Music Hall having ceased to exist, without fault of either party, both parties are excused; the plaintiffs from taking the gardens and paying the money, and the defendants from performing their promise to give the use of the Hall and Gardens and other ...

This is a preview of the whole essay