The doctrine of frustration should not be lightly invoked, extended and should be kept within narrow limits because

The doctrine of frustration should not be lightly invoked, extended and should be kept within narrow limits because it would compromise the sanctity, freedom and purpose of the contract and lead to exploitation of the doctrine.

Although this restrictive narrow usage undermines and contradicts the element of common and statute law, it is essential to restrict it to avoid a further disintegration of the law.

Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.

See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.

Get Plagiarism Report Humanize My Essay

As Lord Wright expressed, the doctrine of frustration ?is modern and flexible and is not subject to being constricted by an arbitrary formula?.

[1]Its application is fairly ambiguous and the courts have had difficulty in distinguishing parallels between the theoretical and practical implementation. The doctrine of frustration was formally recognised in the case of Taylor v Caldwell[2].

It was found that the contract was frustrated on the basis of the implied term theory which stated courts could impose terms which were not expressed in the contract and justify them as being in the true nature of the contract.

Not only did this obscure what the courts were doing[3], this theory was controversial as it was fairly fictitious and unrealistic and the courts could actually read into a contract and assume that a term existed when it did not as stated by Patrick Atiyah.[4] Despite …..

As Treitel stated, considering the occurrence of the supervening event and the choice of the defendants, the courts were not being just or fair in their decision.[13] Following Bingham and the strict judgement, the purpose of frustration is to discharge the contract completely and it can be argued that the courts need to consider t……………………