The Doctrine of Frustration

... The Doctrine of Frustration The doctrine of frustration describes a situation where after the conclusion of a contract, unforeseeable events occur, rendering the performance of that contract impossible. Under that doctrine, courts have the power to discharge any contract that falls within its scope as "frustrated". In the present case, our task is to examine whether the agreement between Jerry and Prudence is valid, or something "radically different" from that which was originally agreed, hence a frustrated contract. Courts nowadays seem to be reluctant when it comes to discharging contracts as frustrated. The current policy on such matters is to prevent parties from using the doctrine as a defence protecting them from a bad bargain. Another parameter is an expected foreseeability of events occurring after the formation of a contract, events which would have a negative impact on its validity. This is why we should eliminate such possibilities before reaching a "verdict".

want to read more? →