In English law, a contracting party is generally bound to the promise he has given and is not easily excused from his liability. However, there is an exception to this principle of pacta sunt servanda if non-performance is caused by upheavals beyond the parties' control.
The purpose of this essay is to give a short overview about this issue. I will start by examining the connection between the doctrines of impossibility and frustration. Afterwards I will have a more detailed look on the concept of frustration in English law and continue by briefly outlining the corresponding principles in other legal systems.
In order to illustrate the rather abstract concept I will contrast two cases in detail and point to a few other ones in more general terms.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- I. Frustration and Supervening Impossibility
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Impossibility
- 3. Frustration in English Law
- 4. Impossibility in Other Systems of Law
- 5. Conclusion
- II. The Doctrines of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The Doctrine of Consideration
- 3. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
- 4. The Conflict Between Promissory Estoppel and Consideration
- 5. Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay aims to provide a concise overview of frustration and supervening impossibility in English contract law, contrasting it with approaches in other legal systems. It also explores the doctrines of consideration and promissory estoppel, highlighting their interplay and potential conflicts.
- Frustration and Supervening Impossibility in English Law
- Comparison of Impossibility Across Different Legal Systems (French and German)
- The Doctrine of Consideration
- The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
- The Relationship Between Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
I. Frustration and Supervening Impossibility: This chapter examines the concept of frustration in English contract law, where a party may be excused from liability if non-performance is due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. It begins by establishing the connection between impossibility and frustration, differentiating between impossibility arising before (mistake) and after (frustration) contract formation. The chapter delves into the specifics of frustration in English law, citing key cases like Taylor v Caldwell (1863) regarding destruction of the subject matter and Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl (1962) concerning the impact of increased costs on contractual obligations. It further explores how the concept of "radical difference" from the original intention determines whether frustration applies, contrasting cases like Krell v Henry and Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton (both 1903). Finally, the chapter briefly compares the English doctrine with those in French and German law, highlighting the use of "force majeure" in French law and the distinction between objective and subjective impossibility in German law.
II. The Doctrines of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel: This chapter explores the core principles of consideration and promissory estoppel within English contract law. It begins by introducing the concept of consideration, a necessary element for a contract to be legally binding. The chapter then delves into the doctrine of promissory estoppel, examining its role in enforcing promises even in the absence of full consideration. The main focus lies on the potential conflict between these two doctrines, where promissory estoppel might appear to undermine the traditional requirement of consideration. The chapter likely provides legal examples and case law to explain how courts balance and reconcile these two vital concepts in contract law. The overall purpose is to clarify the complexities of their interaction and how they affect the enforceability of agreements.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Contract law, frustration, supervening impossibility, consideration, promissory estoppel, force majeure, objective impossibility, subjective impossibility, English law, French law, German law, Taylor v Caldwell, Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl, Krell v Henry, Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton, pacta sunt servanda.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview of Contract Law
What topics are covered in this language preview?
This preview comprehensively covers two main areas of English contract law: frustration and supervening impossibility, and the doctrines of consideration and promissory estoppel. It also includes comparative elements, examining how these concepts are treated in French and German legal systems.
What is the structure of the language preview?
The preview is structured to provide a clear and concise overview. It begins with a table of contents, followed by a statement of objectives and key themes. Subsequently, it offers chapter summaries, providing detailed explanations of each section's content and arguments. Finally, it concludes with a list of keywords relevant to the subject matter.
What is discussed in the chapter on Frustration and Supervening Impossibility?
This chapter defines and explores the concept of frustration in English contract law, where unforeseen circumstances beyond a party's control excuse non-performance. It differentiates between impossibility before (mistake) and after (frustration) contract formation. Key cases such as Taylor v Caldwell (destruction of subject matter) and Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl (impact of increased costs) are analyzed. The chapter also examines the concept of "radical difference" from the original intention, referencing cases like Krell v Henry and Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton. Finally, it compares the English doctrine with those in French and German law, highlighting the use of "force majeure" and the distinction between objective and subjective impossibility.
What is covered in the chapter on Consideration and Promissory Estoppel?
This chapter explains the fundamental principles of consideration and promissory estoppel in English contract law. It defines consideration as a necessary element for a legally binding contract and explores the role of promissory estoppel in enforcing promises even without full consideration. The main focus is on the potential conflict between these two doctrines and how courts reconcile them. The chapter likely uses legal examples and case law to illustrate how these concepts affect the enforceability of agreements.
What are the key themes explored in this preview?
The key themes include frustration and supervening impossibility within English law, a comparison of impossibility across different legal systems (specifically French and German), the doctrine of consideration, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and the complex relationship between consideration and promissory estoppel.
What keywords are associated with this language preview?
Keywords include contract law, frustration, supervening impossibility, consideration, promissory estoppel, force majeure, objective impossibility, subjective impossibility, English law, French law, German law, Taylor v Caldwell, Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl, Krell v Henry, Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton, and pacta sunt servanda.
What is the intended audience for this language preview?
This language preview is intended for academic use, focusing on the analysis of themes within contract law in a structured and professional manner.
What is the purpose of this language preview?
The purpose is to provide a concise and comprehensive overview of key concepts in contract law, facilitating a deeper understanding of frustration, impossibility, consideration, and promissory estoppel within the English legal system and its comparative context.
- Quote paper
- Jenny Walther (Author), 2000, Frustration and supervening impossibility / The doctrines of consideration and promissary estoppel, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/37770
