正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Frustration （章節）

== Instances of Frustration ==

=== Destruction of the subject matter or a vital external element ===

* Taylor v Caldwell: Subject matter of contract (Music Hall) burnt down→ no contract with 
* Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651: Factory and machinery destroyed by fire → contract for work frustrated.
** Contract: install machines in factory
** Subject matter: machines
** Fine throughout contract
** Factory burns down
*** Factory vital external element
*** Cannot put machines into non-existent factory
**** Isn’t subject matter
** Vital external element
** Discharged of further performance

=== Personal Services Contracts ===

* Morgan v Manser [1948] 1 K.B. 184
** Facts: Performers
*** Manser is hired to sing in concert halls
*** Conscripted into the army
*** Doesn’t perform contracts
** Issue: Whether contract was frustrated by the defendant’s call-up and prolonged absence in military service
*** Thereby discharging both parties from further performance.
** Held: Contract was frustrated by the defendant’s call-up. The defendant was not liable for breach of contract.
* Legal Principle
** Citing authorities including Tamplin Steamship Co. and Cricklewood Property Trust
** “If there is an event or change of circumstances
*** So fundamental as to be regarded by the law as striking at the root of the contract as a whole
*** And as going beyond what was contemplated by the parties
*** And such that to hold the parties to the contract would be to bind them to terms
**** Which they would not have made had they contemplated that event
*** Then the contract is frustrated.
**** Frustration operates automatically
**** Irrespective of the parties’ intentions or continued conduct treating the contract as subsisting.
*** Discharges contract

* Condor v The Barron Knights [1966] 1 W.L.R. 87
** Facts:
*** Touring band
*** Drummer has nervous breakdown
*** Psychiatrist at mental asylum:
**** Can perform 4 nights a week
**** or will have mental breakdown
*** Grp needs drummer to perform 7 nights a week
**** Changing the drummer from night to night was not in a business sense practical
*** P's contract provided for immediate dismissal on breach of its terms.
*** P was dismissed and brought an action against his employer for wrongful dismissal.
** Held:
*** Contract was frustrated. 
*** Plaintiff’s inability to perform the essential terms of the contract 
**** Even though only partial
**** Performance had become impossible in a business sense. 
*** No wrongful dismissal.
** Reason:
*** Changes radically nature of what was promised

=== Unavailability and interruption ===
BP Exploration (Libya) Ltd v Hunt [1983] 2 A.C. 352

* BP and Mr Nelson Bunker Hunt (Texas oilman)
* Joint venture
* Exploit oil resources in Libya
* Coup d’etat
* Muammar Gaddafi new leader
* Doesn’t like western companies
* Expropriates BP’s interest and Hunt’s interest
* Under contract
* Frustrated
* Oil field intended to be exploited
* Expropriated by state

Jackson v Union Marine Insurance (1874) LR 10 CP 125

* Ship that was to perform contract
* Grounded
* Cannot sail
* Contract is at an end
* Cannot use the ship

Acetylene Co of GB v Canada Carbide Co (1922) 8 Ll L Rep 456

* Contract was for the shipment
* Case after WW1
* UK gov requisite ships
* Take ship from parties
* Disrupted calcium carbide supply so great
* After the war there was no longer a contract
* Discharged

The Nema [1982] A.C. 724

* Charter frustrated where delay made adventure radically different.

F.A. Tamplin Steamship Company v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Company [1916] 2 A.C. 397

* Facts
** Steamship requisitioned by the government
** Fight between owner of vessel and party chartering vessel
** Requisition payments higher than original charter fee
** Argument: who got the requisition payments government made
* Issue: Whether the requisition of the vessel discharging both parties from further performance.
* Held
** NOT Frustrated
** Charter was a long-term charter for general use within limits
*** Not specific commercial adventure
*** Very close to an end
** Interruption was only partial
*** If it was only partial
**** Not frustration
** Not discharged from further performance

=== Failure of source ===

* Howell v Coupland (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 258
** Facts:
*** Contract to grow potatoes
*** Farmer was going to supply certain amount
*** Land which intended to grow potatoes on floods
*** Cannot grow in sufficient quantity
** Issue: 
*** Court: contract discharged from further performance
*** If complete failure of source (the land growing potatoes)
**** Source has failed
*** Contract discharged from further performance

* Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v T.W. Allen Ltd [1918] 2 K.B. 467
** Facts:
*** Bobbin: spindle of wood, use it to put thread around
*** Feed into sewing machine/textile manufacturing machine
*** Entered into contract with TW Allen
*** Supply wood to make bobbins
*** Timber in UK 2 main sources:
**** Baltic or Canada
**** Wood to make bobbins is from Baltic
*** WW1
**** Difficult to get timber out of country
*** BB sues Allen when they no supply wood
**** Allen: super expensive to get timber
** Held:
*** Contract not discharged of perfoemance
*** Can still buy timber
*** Just more expensive to perform
*** No failure of source
*** Increased expense

=== Method of Performance ===

* Tsakiroglou & Co v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] A.C. 93
** Silent about method of performance
** Parties anticipate certain kind of performance
** Shipping case
*** Goods meant to be shipped to Europe thru Suez
*** Egypt blocked canal
**** Nth could go through
**** Refused to allow further shipping
** Are they discharged thru further performance
** Held:
*** Can still use cape of good hope
*** Not frustration

=== Supervening Illegality ===

* Almost always find a contract frustrated
* At the time legal
** Subsequently becomes illegal
* Illegality affecting substantial part → frustration.
* Court will invariably find contract discharged
* Reason that contract will be discharged
** In order to perform contract must break law
* Fibrosa Spolka Ackcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] A.C. 32
** English company
** Contracted to provide polish company with flat hacking machines
** Autumn 1939 set for delivery
** WW2 broke out
*** Poland invaded and occupied
** Parliament passed Trading with the Enemy Act
*** Illegal to send anybody or anything within enemy territory
** Contract is at the end
* Denny Mott & Dickson v James B Fraser & Co [1944] A.C. 265
** Facts:
*** Fraser & Co: timber merchants
*** Agreement with Denny Mott
**** A trading agreement for the sale of timber (Clauses 1-4).
**** A lease of a timber yard to facilitate that trade (Clause 6).
**** Option granting Fraser right to purchase yard
***** Exercisable only in the event of foregoing trading agreement terminated by either party
*** Control of Timber (No. 4) Order 1939
**** Further transactions between the parties became impossible from the end of September 1939. 
*** Denny continued to occupy the timber yard. 
*** Fraser sent a letter purporting to give notice to terminate the agreement
**** Also of their intention to exercise the option to purchase the yard.
** Held:
*** The House of Lords held that the contract had been frustrated by the 1939 statutory order.
*** Consequently, Fraser's attempt to exercise the option failed.