Taylor v Caldwell
Frustration is when the performance of a contract becomes impossible through no fault of either party
Taylor v Caldwell
p2
Where it is impossible to perform a contract because the subject matter is destroyed, then the contract is frustrated and not breached
Jackson v Union Marine
Where it is impossible to perform a contract because the subject matter is unavailable, then the contract is frustrated and not breached.
Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl
If performance is difficult, not actually impossible, this does NOT frustrate a contract
Condor v Baron Knights
If it is unsafe to perform a contract, this makes it impossible and results in frustration
Denny, Mott and Dickson v James Fraser / Gamerco
If performing the contract becomes illegal, the contract is frustrated and not breached
Krell v Henry
Where the contract has become pointless, this is a radical change in circumstances and so the contract is frustrated, not breached
Herne bay v Hutton
If one point of a contract has been lost, but part of the original
purpose can still be achieved, this is not a radical change in
circumstance and will not frustrate the contract
Davis v FUDC
Where circumstances make the contract challenging, but the purpose remains the same, this is not a radical change in circumstance and will not frustrate the contract
AIP v John Walker
Where the frustrating event is foreseeable, this will not result in frustration.
The Super Servant 2
Where the frustrating event was the fault of one party’s choices, this makes the frustration self-induced and will result in breach
S1(2) Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act
1943
Any money paid before the frustrating event can be recovered
(minus any ‘just’ expenses), and any money that was meant to be paid before the event can no longer be demanded.
S1(3) Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act
1943
If money was meant to be paid after the frustrating event, but work has been done prior to the event, money can be claimed for the value of the completed work.
