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.
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 promissary estoppel
1. Introduction
2. The doctrine of consideration
3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel
4. The conflict between promissory estoppel and consideration
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This work provides a comparative legal analysis of key concepts within English contract law, specifically examining the doctrines of frustration and supervening impossibility alongside the doctrines of consideration and promissory estoppel to determine their enforceability and interaction within legal systems.
- Mechanisms of frustration and supervening impossibility in English and international law.
- Legal requirements and limitations of the doctrine of consideration.
- The development and application of promissory estoppel as an equitable defense.
- Conflict resolution and interplay between consideration and promissory estoppel in court practice.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Frustration in English Law
Studying the concept of frustration it should be kept in mind that the inability to perform is usually a party's own misfortune and he cannot escape the consequences of not performing unless stipulated so in the contract (see Owens, 174). In this sense frustration is a unique "doctrine of excuse" for not performing (Downes, 280), which can only be applied under special circumstances.
There are different events where the contract can be frustrated (for the following see Owens, 176ff). In all cases frustration can only be applied if the event occurs without fault of either party. Supervening illegality arises when a legislation is passed which makes either the contract or its further performance illegal. This happens, for example, where a contract is due to be performed in a country which becomes enemy territory in a war. In the Fibrosa case (1943) an English manufacturer was released from delivering machinery to a Polish company because of the Second World War.
Furthermore, contracts can be frustrated because of supervening physical impossibility. This arises when either the subject matter is destroyed or someone or something essential to the performance of contract becomes unavailable. In this case the use of a particular thing or person should have been stipulated in the contract to prove that it is an essential part of the agreement. In the leading case in frustration, Taylor v Caldwell (1863), a musical hall hired with the purpose of holding concerts, was destroyed by fire. Since this way the subject matter had ceased to exist without fault of either party, the contract was discharged.
Chapter Summaries
I. 1. Introduction: Outlines the principle of pacta sunt servanda and introduces the exception of non-performance due to uncontrollable upheavals.
I. 2. Impossibility: Defines impossibility beyond physical destruction, distinguishing it from mistake and identifying supervening events.
I. 3. Frustration in English Law: Examines specific triggers for frustration, such as supervening illegality and physical impossibility, while noting the "radically different" performance standard.
I. 4. Impossibility in other systems of law: Compares the English approach with the French doctrine of force majeure and the German distinction between objective and subjective impossibility.
I. 5. Conclusion: Summarizes that while the application of frustration is difficult, it remains a vital exception to strict contractual obligations.
II. 1. Introduction: Presents the central question of whether promises without consideration are legally enforceable in modern business transactions.
II. 2. The doctrine of consideration: Explains that consideration acts as the "price" for a promise and outlines requirements such as sufficiency and movement from the promisee.
II. 3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel: Details the evolution of promissory estoppel, highlighting the necessity of an equitable defense to prevent injustice.
II. 4. The conflict between promissory estoppel and consideration: Addresses the concern that promissory estoppel might undermine the fundamental requirement of consideration.
II. 5. Conclusion: Argues that both doctrines are necessary and complementary, with promissory estoppel serving to bridge gaps in fairness within contractual obligations.
Keywords
Comparative Law, Business Law, Frustration, Supervening Impossibility, Consideration, Promissory Estoppel, Contract Law, Pacta Sunt Servanda, Force Majeure, Equitable Waiver, Legal Enforceability, English Law, Contractual Liability, Doctrine of Excuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this publication?
The work provides a comparative legal overview of two central themes in English contract law: frustration and supervening impossibility, as well as the interplay between the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel.
What are the central thematic fields?
The main themes include contractual liability, the legal thresholds for discharging obligations, the definition of consideration, and the equitable application of promissory estoppel in modern business settings.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to examine how English law manages instances where performance becomes impossible or where promises are made without traditional consideration, assessing the consistency and application of these doctrines.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The author employs a comparative legal analysis, contrasting specific historical and leading legal cases (e.g., Taylor v Caldwell, High Trees) and outlining various approaches in different legal systems like French and German law.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The text details the criteria for frustration, the definition and requirements of consideration, the evolution of promissory estoppel as an equitable defense, and the potential conflicts between these legal principles.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as contract law, frustration, consideration, promissory estoppel, force majeure, and comparative legal analysis.
How does the author distinguish between mistake and frustration?
The author clarifies that mistake occurs before a contract is formed (preventing its formation), whereas frustration refers to supervening impossibility that occurs after the contract has been validly agreed upon.
What role does the High Trees case play?
The High Trees case is identified as the foundational turning point for the doctrine of promissory estoppel, where Lord Denning established that a person cannot go back on a promise if it would be unjust or inequitable to do so.
- 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
