Frustration in English Law – A reappraisal
There are few doctrines in the English common law of contract that have raised as much theoretical discussion as the doctrine of frustration. The present article attempts a reappraisal of the doctrine, its central thesis being that many of the major controversies centring on the doctrine have been u...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
1992
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4218 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/6176/viewcontent/21AngloAmLRev278.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | There are few doctrines in the English common law of contract that have raised as much theoretical discussion as the doctrine of frustration. The present article attempts a reappraisal of the doctrine, its central thesis being that many of the major controversies centring on the doctrine have been unnecessary as they stem from an omission to view the doctrine in a holistic fashion. Indeed, it is submitted that a more coherent view must proceed from a theoretical reappraisal, which reappraisal would, ironically, lead to a more cogent practical application of the doctrine itself. That theory lies at the core of the doctrine (more so than in other doctrines) is probably due to the inherent nature and underlying rationale of frustration itself. It appears, unfortunately, that the theoretical discussions which have hitherto occupied numerous pages in the law reports have fallen prey to the central critique just mentioned in so far as they have been preoccupied with the juridical basis underlying the doctrine without actually considering the other theoretical problems in an holistic analysis that must simultaneously take into account the value of at least partial syntheses of theoretical issues where appropriate. Looked at in this light, the following observations by Lord Wilberforce in National Cairiers Ltd. v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd are not in the least surprising: |
|---|