6856283
Description
Flashcards by Ahmed Mirshan, updated more than 1 year ago
More
|
Created by a deleted user
over 11 years ago
|
|
|
Copied by Ahmed Mirshan
about 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Taylor v Caldwell (1863) | A contract is frustrated where performance becomes impossible due to the destruction of the subject-matter of the contract. |
| Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham [1956] | Frustration does not apply where the contract has simply become more burdensome to perform (i.e. disappointed expectations, hardship, mere inconvenience). |
| Tsakiroglou v Noblee [1962] | Even where both parties anticipate a particular performance, unless this can be said to be an 'agreed' means of performance, its unavailability will not render performance in accordance with the contract an impossibility. |
| Krell v Henry [1903] | The contract will not be frustrated unless the contract is wholly devoid of commercial purpose for both parties. |
| Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton [1903] | (Contrast with Krell v Henry) A contract is not frustrated if its commercial purpose remains. |
| The Fibrosa case [1943] | Frustration will apply where a contract becomes illegal to perform. There are circumstances where frustration will not apply where the risk of the event has been provided for in the contract. |
| Denny, Mott & Dickson v James Fraser [1944] | A contract is frustrated where legislation passed after the time of contracting renders contractual performance illegal. |
| Blackburn Bobbin v TW Allen [1918] | A contract is not frustrated where the means of performance becomes impracticable, unless that means is stipulated as a condition of the contract. |
| Graves v Cohen (1930) | Death of a party may frustrate a contract. |
| Condor v The Barron Knights [1966] | The principle of impossibility because of the unavailability of a party central to contractual performance may apply, even where there is only a risk that the party will be unavailable. |
| Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers [1935] | Frustration only applies where the supervening event occurs beyond the control of both the parties. In other words, frustration must not be self-induced. |
| The Super Servant II [1990] | The mere existence of a choice between sources of supply may be enough to establish self-induced frustration. |
| The Eugenia [1964] | If the supervening event were highly foreseeable, the contract is unlikely to be frustrated. However, there is some uncertainty as to how unforeseeable an event must be for frustration to apply. |
| Appleby v Myers (1867) | If payment was to be made on completion of the work and frustration occurred before completion, then no payment (or any part of it) may be recoverable at common law. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.