Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
whats the difference between common mistakes and frustration |
common mistake is applied when its impossible to perform a contract frustration is applied when performance of contract is impossible/illegal/radically different from the one originally agreed |
|
|
when does the doctrine of common mistake have to be present |
before or at the time the parties are entering into a contract |
|
|
when does a frustrating event occur |
after the contract is made |
|
|
what does the doctrine of frustration being present do |
discharges the parties from their future obligations |
|
|
in the past, what case shows the courts not being willing to allow a party to escape contractual obligations due to frustrating events |
Paradine v Jane |
|
|
what were parties expected to fo to deal with unexpected events if they couldn’t rely on the doctrine of frustration |
use ‘hardship clauses’ or force majeure clauses to deal with unexpected events |
|
|
why was this strict approach changed |
potential to lead to unjust/ unequitable / oppressing results |
|
|
what case introduced the doctrine of frustration through the process of implication |
Taylor v Caldwell concert couldnt continue cuz there was a fire |
|
|
in which case was the Taylor v Caldwell approach rejected |
Davis Contractors Ltd v Faveham UDC |
|
|
what was the courts reasoning in Davis Contractors Ltd v Faveham UDC |
the application of the theory of implied term of frustration doesnt make any logical sense. They said it would be difficult to see how parties could have implied a term about an event that they didnt expect/foresee |
|
|
what is the significance of Davis Contractors |
courts wont regard an event as frustratinf merely if and when performance of contract becomes onerous or expensive |
|
|
what are 5 examples of frustrating events |
1 Destruction of the subject matter 2 death or incapacity 3 intervention of public authority 4 cancelation of events 5 legal impossibility |
|
|
what case says that a contract can be discharged only if a frustrating event is not attributable to the fault of a party that relies on frustration |
J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV |
|
|
what case says that if a contract makes clear what happens if a particular, supervening event occurs then the doctrine of frustration will not be applied |
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd |
|
|
what case shows that if a frustrating event should’ve been foreseeable to both parties at the time the contract was formed then the contract may not be regarded as frustrated |
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd |
|
|
What case says that a contract being more difficult/ costly to perform cant be considered as frustrated |
Davis Contractors Ltd v Faveham UDC |
|
|
after a court holds a contract to be frustrated what’re the 2 different effects that can take place |
an effect in common law and an effect in statutory law |
|
|
what case shows the destruction of the subject matter being enough to constitute a frustrating event |
Taylor v Caldwell |
|
|
what case shows that the death or incapacity of the other party is enough to constitute a frustrating event and terminate the contract |
Condor v Barron Knights |
|
|
what case says that fluctuating capacity may not regard the contract to be discharged for frustration |
Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s Universiuty Hospitals NHS Trust |
|
|
whats an example of a contract being frustrated under intervention of public authority because of government intervention |
Fibrosa Spolka Ackyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd |
|
|
whats a case where the contract has changed so radically that it falls under cancellation of events |
Krell v Henry |
|
|
what did Lord Vaughan Williams say about Krell v Henry |
it is important that a radical change in circumstance affects both parties equally and not just one |
|
|
what case is an example of a contract becoming legally impossible to perform and so being frustrated |
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd |
|
|
even tho tho inno party in Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd assumed liability for such events why did the court still decide in favour of the inno party |
because the restriction on the property was indefinite and the assumption of liability dealt with determinate delays |
|
|
what are four examples of limitations to the doctrine of frustration |
self induced frustration express provisions in a contract foreseeability of a frustrating event more difficult/costly to perform |
|
|
what happens to contractual obligations that arose before the frustrating event occurred |
parties are still bound by them |
|
|
what case says that a party that made payments prior to the frustrating event could recover these payments only if there is a total failure of consideration |
Fibrosa |
|
|
what case says that a party that made payments prior to the frustrating event could recover these payments only if there is a total failure of consideration |
Fibrosa |
|
|
what statute deals with frustrated contracts |
The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 |
|
|
what does s1(2) of the Law Reform Frustrated Contracts Act deal with |
the recovery of money paid in advance of frustration money paid over is recoverable |
|
|
what discretion does s1(2) of the Law Reform Frustrated Contracts Act give to the court |
the discretion to award compensatiom for a party that has carried out work under a contract prior to the frustrating event |
|
|
what does s1(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act say |
court has discretion to award compensation for a party that partially performed a contract, conferring valuable benefit to another party |
