正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Frustration （章節）

== The Doctrine ==

* Modern Test
** Established in Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC
*** Frustration occurs when (without fault)
**** Contractual obligation becomes incapable of being performed
**** Because circumstances render it radically different from what was undertaken.

* Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] A.C. 696 
** Facts: Building contract delayed by labour shortages; contractor sought extra payment arguing frustration.
** Issue: Did the delay frustrate the contract?
** Held: No.
** Reasoning: Frustration not lightly invoked; event must make performance radically different.
*** Shortage was foreseeable and risk assumed by contractor.
** Principle: an abandonment of the concept that frustration depends upon an implied term.

* National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] A.C. 675
** Facts: Lease of warehouse; only access road closed for 20 months.
** Issue: Can a lease be frustrated?
** Held: In principle, yes, but not on these facts.
** Reasoning: Doctrine applies to leases, but closure was temporary and not radical enough.
** Principle: Abandones view based on implied term It is the LAW that is discharging this contract from further performance
** Test:
*** Supervening event
*** Without default of either party
*** Contract makes no sufficient provision
*** Significantly changes the nature

* Edwinton v Tsavliris (The ‘Sea Angel’) [2007] EWCA Civ 547
** Facts: Charterparty delayed due to government detention of vessel.
** Issue: Was contract frustrated?
** Held: No.
** Reasoning: Multi-factorial approach: consider contract terms, context, parties’ assumptions, and nature of supervening event.

* MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789
** Facts:
*** Shipping contract where shippers failed to redeliver containers
*** Leading to a dispute over whether this amounted to a repudiatory breach
** Issue:
*** Whether the shipper's inability to redeliver the containers constituted a repudiation of the contract of carriage.
** Held:
*** The legal test for determining if the failure to redeliver amounts to repudiation is, in substance, the same as the test for frustration.
** Principle/Reasoning:
*** Authorities (e.g., Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati; The Hermosa)
*** Established that the test for repudiation in this context is fundamentally the same as for frustration.
*** Test: The court must ask whether the delay in performance (here, in redelivering the containers) was so significant
*** As to render the remaining contractual obligations radically different from those originally undertaken.
* For Continuing Delays: If the delay is ongoing
** Question: whether a reasonable person in the parties' position would regard it as likely to last long enough to have that radical effect.
** Application: In cases of delay of uncertain duration (e.g., due to a strike),
** Assessment is one of fact and degree, on which reasonable opinions may differ (see The Nema).

Canary Wharf v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch)

* Facts: Before Brexit, due to EU membership the EU discharged different functions in UK
** Britain’s responsibility: Pharmaceutical
** EU body rented property at Canary Wharf
** Brexit
** EMA argued Brexit frustrated its lease.
* Issue: Did Brexit frustrate the lease?
* Held: No.
* Reasoning: Not frustrating event
** Cannot operate here
*** But can sublet
*** Still has high economic value
* High bar
** Courts don’t like discharge contract through frustration
** Very similar to mistake
** Consequences cannot be governed by the court
** Once say contract is at an end