Facts: The plaintiff, a musician, was expected to perform at a concert. He broke down and was admitted to hospital. The band ended the contract with the drummer because he was only allowed to do a certain number of concerts instead of all of them due to his illness

Held: The drummer could not take action for wrongful dismissal because he could not meet his obligations due to illness

Facts: The claimants were contractors. They agreed to build certain number of houses for the the defendant (78 houses for £94,000). They agreed to build the houses in 8 months.However, because it was straight after the war there was a shortage of labour and rationing of supply. The houses were built but it took the claimants 14 months and cost them £115,000. The claimants said they were entitled to get their money under The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.

Held: The House of Lords rejected their argument saying there had not been frustration.

⇒ Lord Radcliffe stated that there is frustration when “the law recognises that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”

Facts: This case involved an agreement for the sale of timber. The contract said they would lease a timber yard to Denny, who would have an opportunity to purchase it at a later date. The Control of Timber Order 1939 made further transactions illegal

Held: The contract was frustrated

Facts: A manufacturing company contracted to supply machinery to a Polish company. They agreed to have them delivered in 3-4 months. Some money waspaid up front and the rest to be given on delivery. WW2 started, leading to the government making it illegal for a British company to trade with Poland

Held: The contract was frustrated

Facts: The Defendant hired the claimant's ship to view the Naval Review - which was part of King Edward VII's coronation celebrations - and to offer a cruise for passengers. The king was ill so the coronation was postponed

Held: The contract was NOT frustrated because the cruise could still be done (so the commercial purpose still existed). So, as the Court of Appeal put it, the “foundation of the contract” still existed. In other words, value was still present in the contract

Facts: Shipowners agreed to let a charterer hire their ship and use it for 10 months. Just before the start of the 10 months that the charter could have the ship for the government demanded the ship. The shipowners did not believe the government would have this ship long so asked the charter whether they would still like the ship after the government had finished with it – they said yes. However, the ship was not given back until about 2 years later – now the charterer was no longer happy to hire the ship. The shipowners said they were bound to hire the ship because they agreed to hire the ship after discovering the frustrating event

Held: The House of Lords said that the frustrating even automatically discharged both parties from their obligations and the contract

Facts: A ship was chartered to deliver some cargo. After setting off it ran aground. Although there was no time limit on delivery it was implied it should be delivered in “reasonable time”

Held: The contract was frustrated as it would be many months before it could be ready to sail again

Facts: The defendant wanted to use Krell’s flat to view the king's coronation. The contract stated that the defendant would have the flat for two days for £75. The defendant did not want to go through with contract when the king was ill, which postponed the coronation

Held: The Court of Appeal held that the contract had been frustrated, even though performance was possible

Facts: A ship was chartered to the defendant to use for “otter trawls”. A new law meant a license was needed to use otter trawls. The claimant applied for 5 licenses, but only got 3. The claimant mamed 3 ships that would have a license but excluded the ship that was to be used by the defendant. So, the defendant could not use the ship to fish. The defendant said that there was frustration.

Held: There was NO frustration because the claimant induced the frustration - he could have given the defendant a license to fulfil the contract!

Facts: A warehouse was leased out for a 10 year period. The council closed the road that gave access to the warehouse, resulting in restricted access to it for over a year

Held: The court held there was no frustration as the purpose of contract was still alive (his rights to the property were not intervened with enough)

Facts: The defendant was renting a farm. The defendant thought during the war he was not paying the rent because he had been told to leave

Held: The court rejected that plea. Many believed this decision to be too strict and unjust. However, in terms of the strict interpretation of freedom of contract this decision is fine - if they wanted to avoid such a situation they should have contractually agreed to avoid it!

Facts: A contract was entered to let out a music hall and gardens to the plaintiffs (i.e. the claimants). After the contract was entered, but before the concert itselg, the music hall was destroyed by fire.

Held: It was impossible to perform the contract, so the parties did not have any more obligations under the contract because both parties know the contract depended on the continued existence of the music hall. If absolute obligation had applied the plaintiffs could have taken legal action against the defendants for breach of contract

⇒ Blackburn J approached absolute obligations on implied terms basis, believing it to be the presumed intention the hall would be in existence and because it didn’t exist they should be excused from the contract

Facts: The Suez canal became a dangerous area. A war clause said the ship would not sale anywhere dangerous. They sailed through the war zone thinking it would be okay breaking the clause as their alternative route would have taken forever. The ship was impounded as the canal closed. The Ccarterers claimed the contract was frustrated. The claimant said there was breach of contract

Held: Lord Denning said there was no frustration because they cannot rely on self-induced frustration

Facts: The defendant agreed they would deliver some equipment for drilling belonging to the claimants - two ships had the ability to deliver it. The Super Servant II was given the task of delivery. Before the delivery that ship sank. The defendant claimed this frustrated the contract

Held: No frustration because it was self-induced as they had allocated the wrong ship

Facts: The defendant agreed to transport some peanuts by ship from Sudan to Hamburg. During the time of the contract the Suez canal was closed – so even though the peanuts could still technically be delivered on time it would take 4 times longer and be much more expensive

Held: There was NO frustration. The contract being more expensive and longer cannot lead to its frustration