| Hint | Answer | % Correct |
|---|---|---|
| Anticipatory breach | 0%
| |
| Effect of frustration | Automatic discharge | 0%
|
| When can't a party plead frustration | Breach | 0%
|
| The EMA claimed Brexit and its required move to Amsterdam frustrated its 25-year London lease.The High Court held the lease was not frustrated, confirming that long leases are rarely frustrated and that major political events do not frustrate a contract unless performance becomes legally or physically impossible. | Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] | 0%
|
| Compare with literal enforcement (under new circumstances) | 0%
| |
| How must the court approach this? | Construe terms | 0%
|
| Case that sets it out? | Davis Contractors v Fareham | 0%
|
| A building contract became far more expensive and time-consuming due to labour and material shortages.The House of Lords held there was no frustration, establishing that a contract is frustrated only when the obligations become radically different—not merely more onerous or costly. | Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] | 0%
|
| Divisions of (2) | Death or incapacity | 0%
|
| Delay and hardship | 0%
| |
| Deprive control of subject matter | 0%
| |
| Destruction of subject matter | 0%
| |
| Failure of supplies | 0%
| |
| A Polish buyer prepaid for machinery before WWII made the contract illegal to perform.The court held that money paid is recoverable where there is a total failure of consideration, shaping the law later codified in the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. | Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barber Ltd [1943] | 0%
|
| Impossibility of purpose (3) | 0%
| |
| A flat was rented specifically to view King Edward VII's coronation procession, which was cancelled.The court held the contract frustrated, establishing the doctrine of frustration of purpose where the mutually understood foundation of the contract fails. | Krell v Henry [1903] | 0%
|
| Statute that covers frustration | Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts Act 1943 | 0%
|
| Frustrating circumstances | Legal impossibility/Supervening illegality (1) | 0%
|
| Tenants argued the landlord failed to maintain common areas, even though the tenancy agreement imposed no express repair obligation.The House of Lords held that certain terms can be implied in law where necessary for the contract to function, here implying a duty of reasonable care for essential common parts. | Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] | 0%
|
| Matrix | 0%
| |
| Nature of event | 0%
| |
| Parties' knowledge, expectations, assumptions, contemplations | 0%
| |
| Parties' reasonable calculations | 0%
| |
| Physical impossibility (2) | 0%
| |
| When will frustration occur? | Post-formation | 0%
|
| Power to elect (partial destruction) | 0%
| |
| What may the new law do in (1) | Prohibit performance | 0%
|
| Two factors that severely limit scope of (3) | Purpose must be common (between both parties) | 0%
|
| Purpose must be thwarted to very high degree | 0%
| |
| What is the main criterion for when frustration occurs? | Radical change in obligations | 0%
|
| Multi-Factorial approach to frustration | Sea Angel [2007] | 0%
|
| What kind of frustration is NO frustration | Self-induced | 0%
|
| What must the event be | Supervening | 0%
|
| What case does this doctrine originate from? | Taylor v Caldwell | 0%
|
| The hired music hall was accidentally destroyed by fire before the concerts, making performance impossible through no fault of either party.The case established the doctrine of frustration based on an implied condition that if the subject matter perishes without fault, both parties are discharged. | Taylor v Caldwell (1863) | 0%
|
| Multi-factorial approach | Terms of contract | 0%
|