Frustration cases

  • Created by: Emma13
  • Created on: 30-11-16 15:16
Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban
‘it is not hardship or inconvenience or material loss itself which calls the principle of frustration into play. Contract needs to be radically different.
1 of 21
Taylor v Caldwell
Frustrating event - Impossible to perform.
2 of 21
Fibrosa SA v Fairbairn Lawson
Frustrating event - Illegal to perform
3 of 21
Krell v Henry
Frustrating event - non-occurrence of frustrating event.
4 of 21
Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co
Frustrating event - Government intervention.
5 of 21
Condor v Barron Knights Ltd
Frustrating event - unavailability of specified person.
6 of 21
The Super Servant Two
Limitation of frustration - Without default, no excuse if reason is self created,only valid if accidental.
7 of 21
The Sea Angel
Limitation of frustration - foreseeability, event must be unexpected.
8 of 21
Noblee Thorll
Force Majuere - even where both parties anticipate a particular performance, unless agreed term of performance, contract will not be impossible if used a different type of performance. FM clause cover the different route/wasnt radically different.
9 of 21
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance
construction of e.c- Any ambiguity is sought against the person claiming for it.
10 of 21
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King
construction of e.c- Clear words must be used when seeking liability for negligence.
11 of 21
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
construction of e.c-No rule in law that liability cannot be excluded even for serious breaches.
12 of 21
L’Estrange v Graucob
incorporation of e.c- in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, a person who signs a contractual document is bound by its terms, even if they have no read it.
13 of 21
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning
incorporation of e.c- any misrepresentation as to the existence or extent of an exemption clauses will disentitle it’s creator to the benefit of the exemption.
14 of 21
Chapelton v Barry
incorporation of e.c - where a notice of terms is given in a document, the document must be one which is known to, or which might reasonably be expected to,contain terms intended to form part of a contract.
15 of 21
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
incorporation of e.c - ticket, "red hands and red ink" terms that are unusual and onerous need to be brought to the attention with sufficient notice.
16 of 21
Olley v Marlborough Court
reasonably steps must have been taken to draw the term to the other party’s attention at or before the time the contract is made.
17 of 21
Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association
if notice was given too late, a court may be able to infer notice of the clause from a previous consistent course of dealing between the parties.
18 of 21
Stubbs v Holywell Railway
Frustrating event - death.
19 of 21
Robinson v Davison
Frustrating event - incapacitating illness on the single day for performance of contract = frustration.
20 of 21
Amalgamated Investment
Not frustrating event - if performance of the contract will cost more than was originally anticipated = not frustration.
21 of 21

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Taylor v Caldwell


Frustrating event - Impossible to perform.

Card 3


Fibrosa SA v Fairbairn Lawson


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Krell v Henry


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »