3b)

We understand from the given facts that there two parties Fiona and Grot PLC, has come into a legal
contract, the half payment of the contract is done and the other half payment was to be paid on the day
of speech. However, as the inspection failed of the venue where the dinner has been planned, this has
rendered the contract between both parties. We will examine this situation under the law of frustration.
The doctrine of frustration relieves both parties of their contractual responsibilities where, after the
contract is formed, the parties are unable to reach an agreement. Where the performance is either
impossible or radically difficult to perform. It was established in the case of Paradine v Jane [1647]
determined that parties could never be released from their contractual obligations regardless of
changes in circumstances.

As it was merely, impossible for Grot PLC to hold the event, at this time we will analysis that whether,
the doctrine of frustration would come into play or not. It was concluded in the case of Taylor v Caldwell
(1863) that the defendants were found not to be accountable for the losses. The implied provision of the
contract, according to Blackburn J, until the case of Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District
Council [1956], this implied condition was the basis of the law of frustration.

Frustration can only exist when the contracting parties have not distributed the risk of loss between
themselves. A contract's duties might vary in a variety of ways. Previous case law has established
multiple categories for the application of frustration, each with its own set of presumptions and
procedures. As a result, this chapter will go over each one individually, such as the non-occurrence of an
event. The operation of frustration in such situations is best understood by referring to two of the most
famous examples on frustration, known as the 'coronation cases,' because they both pertain to King
Edward's coronation. As in the cases of Krell v Henry [1903] and Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v
Hutton [1903]. In the case of Krell v Henry, the fact that the room was rented for the purpose of the
coronation procession was not enough, but the fact that the room was only rented for the day, and had
unique characteristics such as a balcony overlooking the procession that most other rooms would not
have, formed the foundation of the contract, and could thus be frustrated if the event did not occur.

There will be no contract frustration if an occurrence results in a change in obligations or impossibility

for one party.  As to rise the cause under the law of frustration must be a shared assumption made by
both parties, and it must result in impossible for both. There was an agreement to sell some Finnish
timber to a purchaser in Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v Allen (TW) & Sons Ltd [1918]. The seller was unable
to receive the lumber from their Finnish supplier due to the onset of war. The contract was not broken
because this was solely the seller's problem, and the buyer of the timber was unconcerned about where
the seller got the wood from.

The essential point to remember is that how one party conducts business is their concern, and they face
the risk of whatever business decisions they make that lead to situations like Blackburn Bobbin. They
took a risk by not having the Finnish wood on hand before entering into a contract with the buyer. They
are solely responsible for how they run their business, and the other party should not be held liable.

Therefore, we conclude in the light of discussed law and the facts from the case that, the contract
between both parties will not be frustrated and Grot will be liable to pay damages to Fiona.