Frustration

Problem + how would you differ

1. Intoxication – self-induced frustration does not amount to frustration

Paradine v Jane (1647)

Earlier – undertook risk

Taylor v Caldwell
‘impossible’ to perform, cannot perform without a hall.

Corona Virus – frustrating event?

- court to decide but research

‘radically different’

Krell v Henry – only purpose was defeated

Illegality
- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1943)
– Singapore (chewing gum), Malaysia ( smoking area)

Incapacity
- Condor v Barron Knights (1966)

Limitation to frustration

Effects of frustration
Contract price – 600 million
Deposit – 60 million
Expenses – 400 million + 30 million

s.1(2) - (only for deposit and pre-payment)

– all sums paid, recoverable
- All sums payable cease to be payable provided the party is entitled to recover /retain up to
the amount of the deposit, for any expenses incurred.

s.1(3) – the contract price

- the party is entitled to claim a just sum if the other party has enjoyed a practical benefit.
- to decide jum sum, the court will normally look into the expense incurred
- cannot retain if the buyer did not enjoy any practical benefit

Breach
Term
– condition (more important)
- Warranty ( less important)
1. Breach in condition
- repudiate / affirm + claim damages , damages on loss of profit (expectation measure as if
the contract was properly performed)
Robinson v Harman
- before claiming damages, has to satisfied remoteness test (two limbs test, satisfied either
one)

Hadley v Baxendale

1. All loses arising naturally from the usual course of things.

2. All losses which are within the contemplation (knowledge) of both parties
Victoria Laundry

Percuniary or non-percuniary losses

- mental distressed

Close to the