Q: The Strolling Bones are an ageing rock band who now enjoy the better things in life.

They contract
with Excess University Student Law Society to appear at their annual dinner for a fee of £50,000 and
10 cases of Chateau Latour wine. It is agreed that the fee shall be payable and the wine deliverable in
two stages: half on signing and half on the day of the performance. The Student Law Society make the
first payment but do not deliver any wine to the band. The Strolling Bones pay a non-refundable
deposit when they book two large lorries to transport their equipment. The venue at which the annual
dinner is to take place fails its safety inspection the day before the performance and the dinner is
canceled. Advise the Strolling Bones as to whether the contract has been frustrated.

Ans: To answer this question, we need to talk about frustration. The level of frustration will initially be
established. Specifically, it would be decided whether or not the occurrence was sufficiently noteworthy
to count as a frustration of the contract. Is there any restriction in the facts that might lead to a breach of
contract rather than frustration? Finally, if the contract is not breached but is frustrated, the effect on
both parties under common law and the Frustration of Contracts Act of 1943 would be established on
the basis of the facts. If anything happens after the contract is signed that neither of the parties could
have expected or prevented, then the contract is null and void. The court in Personal Carrier v. Panalpina
ruled that a contract is invalid and considered frustrated when its vital terms become impossible due to
external factors. The court will look at the terms of the contract, the parties' demands, and the nature of
the incident to assess whether or not there has been frustration, as stated in Cti group v. transclear.

There are four types of situations that can lead to a frustrated contract. Injury, the inability to conduct
business, being illegal, dying, or being unable to function are all examples of physical injury. The
uncertainty of business failure in a shared enterprise lies in the heart of this problem query. If the
contract cannot be performed because of economic considerations, it will be unenforceable and of no
further legal effect. Since the only reason for the room rental was to see the king, and he did not make
an appearance, it seems plausible to deem the contract frustrated, as was the case in Krell v. Henry.
Herme v. Cotton established that the court possesses the power to evaluate whether an incident has
changed the contractual intent.

The University made the payment in advance, it becomes the plaintiff (c), whereas Strolling Bones
becomes the defendant (D). According to the available evidence, the university reached out to Strollig
Bones for the purpose to arrange a concert for the annual banquet. Strolling Bones and the university
clearly entered into this agreement for the express intention of hosting the annual dinner concert.
Nothing in the available evidence suggests that anyone was at fault or that this outcome was
predictable. In addition, the data do not suggest that any of the participants were notified of the
frustrating happening, and it came as a complete surprise to everyone involved. The contract was
therefore likely frustrated due to the occurrence of a commercially impossible event.

If there is a limit to how frustrated one can get. A contract is considered to be frustrated in all but the
most rare of circumstances. It was decided in the case Mara tine v. ocean trawlers that frustration cannot
be used as an excuse for wrongdoing. According to the decision in Gold Crop v. BDW Trading, an incident
is not considered frustrating if it might have been expected by either party. It was decided in Davis
Contractors that an increase in costs would not cause excessive stress.
All evidence points to the conclusion that the event was called off because of a danger to guest safety.
This could be interpreted to mean that (c) the university planned the event and provided the venue for
the dinner. In most cases, it is up to the organizer to ensure everyone's well-being and handle any
administrative concerns that may arise. Strolling Bones (D), on the other hand, was just responsible for
singing during the meal and not for planning it. Because of this, it is possible to draw the conclusion that
the university was careless and should have undergone inspection for safety issues. It is fair to assume
that the university broke the agreement, and as a result, the university must pay Strolling Bones (d) for
any damages that resulted. However, the severity of the frustration is also influenced by whether or not
the contract has been breached.

Assuming the contract was frustrated, it is critical to identify the consequences of such situations. The
evidence shows that the university paid one hundred thousand pounds in advance but had not yet sent
out the wine bottles. A issue arises as to whether or not the university may recover the first payment.
After an frustrating event, students are wondering if the institution must pay another installment in
addition to the twenty bottles of wine already promised. The likelihood of a return on the university's
nonrefundable $5,000 investment in a truck owned by Strolling Bones.

The discussion of the laws of mistake in contract law is clarified by a question.

Professor Goodhard pointed out that "no area of contract law is more complex and uncertain than that
which pertains to the impact of error on the formation of a contract." Both oral and written contracts
contained the same common mistakes, each of which could be identified independently.

According to subsection (2)(1) of the Retail Trade Act of 1979, "You cannot give what you do not have."
The principle of mistake is so defined. The law made a distinction between mistakes made in verbal and
written contracts. It is generally accepted that written contracts provide more transparency and evidence
than conversational ones. In the Shogun Finance case, Lord Hobhouse ruled that written evidence is
more credible than anecdotal information. To the contrary, Lord Nichols claims, "There is no magical
significance associated with a misrepresentation expressed in writing as opposed to verbally."possible
results for frustrated contracts: the Frustration Act of 1943, and common law (prior law). In Chandler v.
Webster, the common law standard was set. It states that any advance payments are nonrefundable and
must be paid in full after the frustration date. Given that common law is out of date and unfair to the
plaintiff, it cannot be used here. Frustration Acts of 1943, specifically Section 1(2), is relevant to this
argument. Any payments made in advance are liable for reimbursement under Section 1.2, while any
remaining funds are to be held. It also states that the recipient's expenditures will be deducted from any
payments made in advance.

Legally, the institution has a right to be reimbursed the original payment of 1 lakh pounds; however,
recovering wine bottles is not possible because the university did not provide any wine to Strolling
Bones. Subsection (2) of Section 1 makes it obvious that the University is released from its obligations
under the Agreement and that the Second Installment is not due in the Second Incident. Strolling Bones
may also deduct the initial $5,000 he spent on vehicles from the original one million pound advance in
accordance with Section 1.2.
Advice for Rolling Bones

A second installment cannot be requested from the institution, and Strolling Bones is also responsible for
repaying the initial payment in advance of one hundred thousand pounds. Strolling Bones is entitled to a
$5,000 refund from the down payment because of the $5,000 it spent on transportation.