正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Frustration （章節）

=== Historical Development ===

* Paradine v Jane (1647), Aleyn 26
** Facts: Tenant dispossessed for 2 years due to an act of the King’s enemies; refused to pay rent.
** Issue: Is the tenant excused from paying rent due to supervening impossibility?
** Held: No. The obligation was absolute; supervening impossibility did not discharge it.
** Reasoning: Common law originally insisted on literal performance of absolute promises.
* Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
** Facts: Contract for hire of music hall; hall destroyed by fire before performance.
** Issue: Are parties excused from performance due to destruction of the subject matter?
** Held: Yes. Contract discharged.
** Reasoning: Blackburn J implied a condition that the continued existence of the hall was essential.
*** Doctrine moved away from absolute contracts; laid foundation for modern frustration.