Frustration

It is also to be appreciated, however, that the doctrine of frustration has evolved so as to serve to mitigate the rigour of the common law’s insistence on literal performance of absolute promises, in keeping with the decision in J Lauritzen AS v. Wijsmuller BV, The Super Servant Two [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, so as to be able to give effect to the demands of justice to escape from injustice where it would result from enforcement of a contract. Moreover, the concept of frustration also effectively ‘kills’ the contract and discharges the parties to any agreement from further liability under it, so the doctrine cannot be lightly invoked but must be kept within very narrow limits, since it brings the contract to an end forthwith, without more and automatically.

Therefore, with this in mind, it must be recognised that the essence of frustration should not be the act or election of the party seeking to rely upon it, but due to some outside event or extraneous change of situation, without blame or fault on the side of the party seeking to rely upon it, supported by Kissavos Shipping Co SA v. Empressa Cubana de Fletes, The Agathon [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 211.

Back to Contract Law

Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.