SESSION 05 - DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT.pdf

T sued c for damages held the existence of a

Info icon This preview shows pages 20–28. Sign up to view the full content.

T sued C for damages. Held : the existence of a particular thing is essential to a contract, and the thing is destroyed by no fault of the party selling it, the parties are freed from obligation to deliver the thing” 20 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 20

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

Fact . H hired K’s rooms with the intention of watching the coronation procession of King Edward VII of England. H paid a deposit, with the remainder after payable later. In the end, the King fell ill and the procession was cancelled. K sued for the balance, H sued to recover his deposit. Held : Contract was frustrated. Both parties released from their obligations 21 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 21
Facts . Parties contracted for sale of timber. Before the timber could be delivered, war time regulations came into force prohibiting dealing in timber. Held : Contract was frustrated. 22 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 22

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

Fact . Drummer employed to work 7 nights a week when gigs were available. After illness, he was medically fit only to work 4 nights a week. Held : Employment contract frustrated as it was not possible to only employ someone to stand in for days he was not working. Rehearsals etc would still mean the stand-in would have to be employed for 7 nights. 23 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 23
24 WHEN IT IS NOT FRUSTRATION The following do not constitute frustration: Performance more expensive or difficult: Glahe International Expo v ACS Computer Pte Ltd Foreseeability. Force majeure clauses, where parties have agreed in advance what they will do in event of frustration Self-induced frustration: Maritime National v. Ocean Trawlers. a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 24

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

Facts . G bought computers from A for the Russian market. Russia imposed a 15% import duty on computers, and there was a fall in the currency etc. G claimed the contract was frustrated by supervening events. Held : No. Just because the contract became less profitable did not frustrate the contract. The obligations in the contract had not fundamentally altered. 25 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 25
Facts . o A chartered vessel from R for fishing activities. o Both knew a licence was needed for this. o A applied for 4 licences, while it had 5 vessels. It only received 3 licences, which it applied to its own vessels. o The vessel from R was therefore not licenced. o A argued contract was frustrated. Held : A’s own action made the contract impossible to perform, therefore they could not raise the question of frustration. 26 a. DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS
Image of page 26

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.