CaseSnappy Blog

Crunching Concepts: Exploring Frustration in Contract Law

21 August 2024 | CaseSnappy Team

A zoomed in image of flames in a fireplace.

Introduction

Greetings once again! On this edition of our Crunching Concepts series, we delve deep into the notion of frustration in UK contract law - a fascinating yet complicated aspect that discharges parties from their contractual obligations due to unforeseeable and superseding events. Let’s unravel this enthralling legal concept together!

What is Frustration?

The concept of frustration refers to a situation where, post-contract formation, unforeseeable events transpire that render the agreement unlawful, impossible or extremely burdensome to perform. Notably, frustrated contracts are automatically discharged, freeing both parties from their obligations, even if they are not at fault. It’s crucial to remember that frustration stands apart from discharge reasons like mutual mistake, impossibility, or breach.

Why is Frustration Important?

Here's why taking note of frustration matters:

1. Equitable Solutions: Frustration provides a fair outcome for those stuck in an unjust situation where external factors make fulfilling contractual obligations impossible or unreasonably difficult.

2. Changing Foundations: It acknowledges that external events can significantly reshape the essence of the contract, making its original performance unreasonable or impossible.

3. Principle Preservation: Frustration ensures the principle of pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) stays intact, by relieving the parties from their duties in legitimate 'frustrating' scenarios.

Key Cases on Frustration

Several influential court cases have delved into and helped define the concept of frustration:

Taylor & Anor v Caldwell & Anor [1863] EWHC QB J1: A seminal case that gave birth to the doctrine of frustration. The destruction of a concert hall by fire - out of no fault of either party - before a series of performances led to the contract becoming impossible to perform.

Krell v. Henry (1903) 2 KB 740: Here, a room rented to view King Edward VII's coronation procession was invalidated due to the event's sudden cancellation. The court concluded that the event's cancellation frustrated the contract as the procession underpinned the contract.

CaseSnappy: Unravelling Complexities

At CaseSnappy, we strive to demystify complex legal concepts for law students, professionals, and anyone seeking to understand law's complex twists and turns. We trust this explanation of the notion of frustration has shed light on an otherwise intricate subject and provided you with a clear understanding.

Sign up to CaseSnappy today - it's free! Together, we can continue unravelling more complex legal concepts as part of our exciting Crunching Concepts series, making law easier to navigate, one concept at a time.

Get started
By using CaseSnappy, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.