Contract LAW 11 PDF

Preview

Summary

Frustration contract...

Description

The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, is an Act of Parliament which rules the onus and the rights of both parties who are involved in a frustrated contract. The Act gives a dissimilar approach to that of the common law at the period which did not allow any party in a frustrated contract to claim the money that had been paid ahead of a contract becoming impossible to perform. The purpose of creating the law Subsequent to the introduction of the Act, the rule that was created in Chandler v Webster [1904] confined the rights of a plaintif seeking payment in the circumstances of a frustrated contract. In Chandler v Webster, Webster agreed to rent a room to Chandler so he could witness the king’s coronation. Chandler paid for his room on the basis of the agreement but the coronation never took place. Chandler’s claim for a refund, and the claim was rejected by the court.He had to pay the balance of the sum that had been agreed. This rule was considered to be generally unfair. However,the rule stood for many years before a Law Revision Committee proposed changes to the rule by way of the Law Revision Committee’s Seventh Interim Report. The committee felt they needed to create a mitigating circumstances to enable claimants to be able to reclaim money paid.In reply to commendation, a bill was enacted by the government and The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, came into law in August 1943. The main objective of creation of The Act The main aim of the Act was create an eminent defence to a party that is paying a sum of money on the basis of a contractual agreement in circumstances where the contract has been frustrated. However, this would be to cure any unfortunate situations that had previously occurred in cases such as Chandler v Webster. The effect of The Act Basically, the rule in Chandler v Webster ensured that the claimant could not recover the money he/she had paid on the basis of the contract, before the contract had become frustrated. The basic change that The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 made was to provide that the sums paid would become either partially or fully recoverable, if a contract was impossible to perform. Legally, this created the opportunity for a party to recover the benefit which has unfairly benefited the other party.

Lord Radclife in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] described Frustration happens when the law acknowledges that a contractual responsibility has become unable to achieve their part of the contract, which is radically diferent from the contract which was firstly planned. Since the case in Paradine v Jane (1647), the doctrine of frustration has developed through the common law in which the responsibility to carry out the initial contractual commitment is no more efective ( Taylor v

Caldwell (1863) but in the modern day, Frustration is being control by the court and the successive legislation

When discussing the difficulties in Frustration, there is a case in National Carriers Ltd v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd (1981). The Judge Lord Simon stated, “when a contract occurs in an event without failure from both parties or when the contract did not create more than enough, this makes the contract difficult to carry out their job roles but in cases such as Taylor v. Caldwell [1683], demolition of one part of the premise could frustrate the contractual agreement and when the procedure of mechanics could not be achieved, the contract may be frustrated, the evidence example is in Nickoli and Knight v. Ashton Edridge & Co [1901], when a ship delivering plaintif's cotton seed ran ashore in the Baltic Sea. And the other party was unable to carry out their contractual responsibility. Another case which proves difficulty in Frustration is Robinson v. Davison [1871], He was unable to perform music due to an unexpected sickness. Under s.2 of Law Reform Act 1943, this law forces the court to permit parties to retains or recovers the sums paid or payable before the time of discharge., and it helps party afected by Frustration to quicken the recovery of money lost. More so,a court could restrain a claim of impossibility, if the court finds that the contractual agreement appears more burdensome for the party rather than being less of a burden to carry out the obligation. The example of this is in Tsakiroglou Co Ltd v. Noblee Thorl CmBh [1962] in which the Suez canal was blocked for shipping amidst a war between Israel, France,UK and Egypt. The court held that because the defendant’s peanut cargo had to travel a longer journey to deliver the consignment, it was more burdensome for the party as opposed to it being not possible to carry out their contractual obligation responsibilities and in addition, there is also a case in Gold Properties Ltd v. BDW Trading Ltd [2010], the court viewed that the fall in housing prices during the recession did not add up Frustration as it did not prevent BDW from it contractual.

When a contract is agreed, a change in law at all parties' performance is void and illegal, the contract If after a contract is formed, a change in law renders performance illegal, the contract will be frustrated. The example is the case of both Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943 and Ertel Bieber & Co v. Rio Tinto [1918],in which the first war and second war fugitive the trading with adversaries countries, e.g Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v. Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd [1945] were not permanent or incomplete illegality could give room to Frustration and if a contract derived at special provision for an unpredicted circumstance or the event which give room frustration in contract at a later day, the contract would not amount to be frustration in regard to force majeure clause, which state that one party could allocate risk and liability to another party, it happened in Pioneer

Shipping Ltd v. BTP Tioxide Ltd, the defendant’s force majeure clause mitigate him of responsibility when the company determined to take its charter ship to another place due to mining strike in Canada. For instance this clause could be restricted by court where the defendant’s claim for adverse weather did not amount in a force majeure event this can be seen in the case of Matsoukis v. Priestman [1915]. The common Law ruling led to creation of the another Act which is Unfair Contract Term Act 1977, in s.3 of the UCTA 1977, in a non consumer contract when a part is in breach of contract which confined any liability the majeure clause would not be applicable including The Consumer Rights Act 2015 CRA 20115, it further confined this clause in consumer contract.

The Court of Appeal in Krell v. Henry [1903] states that Frustration of a contract can occur where the event renders the contract incapable of performance which ends a contractual agreement, but when a supervening event renders performance radically difers from when the contract was initially planned, a contract will be frustrated. In the case of Krell v. Henry [1903] for the coronation of Edward VII, the defendant agreed to rent a room to the plaintif which missed the coronation of the King because the king fell ill and the coronation was postponed. After the performance was being physically possible, the court looked at the suitable ground for Frustration as the basic of the contract between the two parties was the coronation and rendering the current contract not successful or futile.Nevertheless, the courts apply a unwillingness to approve claims for frustration on these ground as it could be clear to manipulation. For example in the case of Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v. Hutton[1903] for the same coronation as clearly stated in the Krell, the defendant hired a boat to take passenger to watch the naval review by the king during his coronation and the Court of Appeal ruled that frustration had not occurred because one could still benefit of the service despite the event is being cancelled. The doctrine of Frustration is further restricted by common Law ruling in Lauritzen A S v. Wijsmuller BV [1990] and Maritime National Fish Ltd v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd[1935] which states that the fault of a contract would end up in Frustration. This doctrine entails the frustration event to be out of control by the parties and could not be self convinced by an individual.

Conclusion Since the ruling in Paradine v Jane (1647), The Doctrine of Frustration has made provision to protect parties who cannot perform their agreed contractual obligations. Despite this evolution, the Court avoids manipulation. Have restricted the scope of this doctrine to limit potential manipulation from parties. Regarding its importance limitation through common law development and subsequent Acts of parliament,

the premises of the doctrine of frustration is the help those afected during exceptional conditions

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3.

Halson, p. 427 Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] AC 32 4. Halson, p. 428 5. Williams, p. 67 6. Whincup v Hughes (1870–1871) LR 6 CP 78 7. (1870–1871) LR 6 CP 78, p. 84 8. McElroy, Williams (1941), p. 2 9. Seventh Interim Report, Cmd. 6009 of 1939 10. Kofman, Macdonald, p. 541 11. Kofman, Macdonald, p. 542 12. Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226 13. BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No. 2) [1979] 1 WLR 783 14. [1979] 1 WLR 783, p. 814–815 15. Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 16. Halson, p. 429 17. [1979] 1 WLR 783, p. 802 18. [1979] 1 WLR 783, p. 805 19. Chen-Wishart, p. 315 20. [1979] 1 WLR 783, p. 829 21 Chen-Wishart, Mindy (2007).Contract Law,Oxford University Press.ISBN 0-19-920716-X 21. Halson, Roger (2001). Contract Law. . 22. Koffman, Laurence; Macdonald, Elizabeth (2007). The Law of Contract. McElroy, R; Williams, Glanville (1941). "The Coronation Cases. II". The Modern Law Review. Blackwell Publishing. 5 (1). 23 Williams, G L (1944). "The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943". The Modern Law Review. Blackwell Publishing. 7 (1/2)....