Word Count: 1493 Module Title: Contract Law: 1009M. Exam ID: 8637282 This problem raises question in relation to the doctrine of frustration. This doctrine operates to discharge contractual obligations when an unaccounted-for event renders the contract impossible, radically different or illegal. Traditionally contractual obligations were absolute as established in Paradine v Jane1, however this rule was relaxed in Taylor v Caldwell2 to ensure that parties no longer had to carry out their contractual obligations when at no fault of their own performance became radically different or impossible. In January 2020, John and Peter entered into a contract for the use of Johns booth at the Golf Club from the 1st to the 7th of May 2020 during the golf tournament. Since the original contract 4 events have transpired for which John now wishes to claim have frustrated the contract. To answer this problem, it will be necessary to discuss whether any of the events in question would be of such calibre as to allow him to bring a claim and whether he can be remediated. The first possible claim is that Peter did not return from his holiday until the 10th May 2020, resulting in him not occupying Johns booth or viewing the golf tournament and therefore he did not perform his contractual obligation. This is clearly self-induced frustration by Peter as he had control over his actions and chose not to return to the country as he was 'having a great time' which was clearly avoidable. As established in Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd3 the burden of showing the frustration was caused by Peter's negligence is on John. He is likely to be able to demonstrate this, as John had no influence over Peter not returning from his holiday. However, as stated in Maritime National Fish Ltd4 frustration should not be due to the actions of one single party to the contract. In addition in the Super Servant Two5 it was held that 1 [1647] Aleyn 26. 2 [1863] 3 B.&S. 826. 3 Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd [1942] A.C. 154. 4 Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] A.C. 524. 5 J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1.
Word Count: 1493 Module Title: Contract Law: 1009M. Exam ID: 8637282 where performance is still possible a contract will not be frustrated. These principles evidently apply to the scenario as performance by Peter was still possible, there was nothing out of his control forcing him to stay on holiday, he chose to stay on his own accord, John was not affiliated with this action. Therefore, John will not be able to claim for frustration, however, it is likely John would be able to claim for breach of contract and he would be entitled to damages as a result. The second possible claim for frustration is that in March 2020, John was ordered by Lindum City Council to pay Ā£5000 for reinforcement work to be undertaken on