Introduction:
Unforeseen or unforeseeable events make the performance of contracts impossible. The doctrine of frustration is a device that helps to set aside the contract when any unforeseeable event makes the performance impossible. Section 56 of the Indian contract says “A contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void" .
In Taylor vs Cadwell , it was held that when the contract is not possible and absolute, but subject to an express or implied condition, for example a particular thing shall continue to exist, then in such a case, if the thing ceases to exist, it will be deemed that the performance of the contract is impossible
…show more content…
In Krell vs Henry , the defendant agreed to rent a flat for viewing the coronation procession of King Edward VII. But subsequently the procession was cancelled. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the remaining rent payable as he refused to pay it. The court held that viewing the procession was the foundation of the contract. Due to some change in the circumstances, the purpose of the contract could no longer be achieved. So the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the remaining rent payable to …show more content…
The nature and terms of the contract may help in deciding whether the performance has become impossible or commercially difficult. Just because there is inflation, or a strike or a business loss, the party can’t be excused from performing the contract.
Position in India law and English law:
The Position of this doctrine in Indian and English law is similar expect for a few provisions. Both in Indian and English Law, Impossibility doesn’t mean merely physical impossibility, but it also includes situations where the performance of the contract may not literally be impossible but because of changed circumstances, the performance would not fulfil the object. This was pointed out in Sushila Devi vs Hari Singh .
In Indian law, the doctrine of frustration is not applicable in cases where there is self-induced frustration, whereas in English law it depends on the facts and the intention of the parties.
In)Indian)law,)the)recovery)of)the)prepayment)is)possible in)case)the contract)is)frustrated. But in English Law it was irrecoverable.)After the)enactment of the Law reform(Frustrated Contracts))Act 1943, the recovery)of the)prepayments)was made possible in England.
Judicial
There were also no terms or conditions to perform, nor a time or event of completion of performance. “USLegal.com helped further explain the requirements of a legally enforceable contract by providing the following elements that must be adhered to, in order for a contract to be legally binding: an offer; 1. an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, 2. a promise to perform, 3. a valuable consideration, 4.
A condition is an important term to the contract, and breach of a condition will give the innocent party the right to immediately seize the contract and to claim damages.
1. What is the difference between a. and a. The precipitating problems or symptoms. She started her journey to foster care and finally Babcock Center because on September 19, 1955, an order from the probate court of McCormick County, she and her siblings, were removed from the custody of their parents, and the Children's Bureau of SC was appointed their guardian. Records indicate they have been living in deplorable circumstances.
Legal Studies Essay Joey Agerholm Exclusion clauses determine the liability of something that might go wrong within a contract. They are used by sellers as an attempt to avoid or limit their liability. The seller has the advantage over the buyer who must agree to the clauses to purchase the product/service. Because of the buyers disadvantage the court takes such cases, involving exclusion clauses, very seriously, and the content of the clauses are carefully interpreted. With the current Trade Practises Act and the Fair Trading Act the standard form of business contract is adequate and effective in protecting the buyer. The Trade Practise Act is the most effective legislation for the protection of the consumer. It implies to the following situations:- - “A promise by the seller that the buyer will become the owner” If a car dealer breaks a promise or part of a contract, for example that he has the right to sell a car, and the car is stolen then although the buyer will have to give the car back he/she will get her money back. - “ A promise by the seller that goods will fit the description supplied by the seller” In this case the buyer is protected if the seller makes a promise, which is a condition of the contract, describing the product, and when the buyer receives the product, it does not match the description. - “ A promise where the seller is made aware of the purpose for which the goods are required, that the goods will be reasonably fit for that purpose” This condition is implied when the buyer makes the purpose of the goods needed known to the seller, and the buyer then relies on the seller’s judgement in providing the correct product. For example it would not be reasonable if you made the seller aware that you wished to purchase something suitable for mowing the average suburban backyard and you were sold a tractor. - “A Promise that goods are of merchantable quality” According to this act a good is considered to be merchantable if they are suitable for the prospect for which other similar goods are sold, involving the description applied to them, the price and any other relevant information. This act does however does not protect the consumer if he/she has examined the product and missed any defects that should have been seen or if the seller made him/her aware of the defect prior to the purchase of the product.
... with adequate funds to make the payments would have no issue with the payment plan provided by the contract. Since some reasonable consumers would have no problem with the payment plan provided by the contract, the contract should not deemed unconscionable, and thus should be enforceable.
"A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 320)
One-Year provision. The statute of frauds requires that all the contracts that cannot be performed within one year of the making of the contract be in writing or in proper electronic form. In this case, it is impossible to grow five crops of potatoes, and wait until they are mature in Idaho within a year. Therefore, this oral contract is unenforceable, but if Blair can do it within a year, then the contract is enforceable.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
In order to answer the issue which is stated above, it is pertinent to discuss the elements of the two doctrines. First we need to discuss the elements of unconscionability. In the case of Fry v Lane , the court suggested that there are three elements to establish unconscionability. First, one party must be at a special disadvantage to the other, for instance, poverty, ignorance or lack of advice. Secondly, this weakness must be exploited by the other party in some morally culpable manner. Thirdly, the resulting transaction must not be merely harsh or improvident, but overreaching and oppressive. When the terms of the contract are so oppressive and outrageous that it...
This case mentioned below is a fine example of understanding the Law of Contract in a better manner. (Gerald, 2014).
But even after Fibrosa certain problems, such as the expenses incurred before the frustration remained. Therefore seeing that the common law was too rigid, The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act (1943) was introduced.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
One of the last remaining strongholds of classical contract law is the notion that contracts require offer and acceptance therefore, in order for a contract to become binding, offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations must exist. However contracts are formed in different ways for each different circumstance. (Shawn Bayern, Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept, 103 Cal. L. Rev. 67, 102 (2015)
The Pacific Oil Company negotiators strove to stress how well this contractual relationship had been working for the past years. Fontaine and Gaudin made every effort to think of every scenario that could possibly inhibit the contract from going through. Their dedication to meetings, cost analysis, and predicting overages and shortages of supplies show their dedication to these negotiations. “They wanted to work hard to obtain a favorable renegotiation of the existing agreement” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Bruce, Negotiation Readings, 2010).