Frustration under English law – Key issues in a global pandemic
The extraordinary circumstances that Covid-19 has forced us to adapt to are demonstrated by the fact that we are routinely looking at an area of law which has developed, primarily, as a result of world changing events such as wartime shortages, the first Gulf War and the global financial crisis of 2008.
How does Frustration operate?
- Frustration discharges both parties from all of their future obligations pursuant to the contract.
- It operates automatically. It requires no positive act by either party.
- It requires there to have been an “outside event or extraneous change of situation” which has arisen without blame of the person seeking to rely on it.
- The key is whether the situation makes the obligation pursuant to the contract impossible to perform, not simply more difficult, or even financially catastrophic for one of the parties.
- The circumstances that you must find yourself in have to be “radically different” from when the contract was concluded.
- The test has a high bar and requires you to prove that the contractual obligations have changed beyond what could have reasonably been anticipated at the time the contract was entered into.
- If the contract sets out what should happen in circumstances where there is a pandemic, a claim for frustration is likely to fail. The reason for this is that you are unlikely to get over the hurdle of finding yourself in a “radically changed” situation if such a circumstance (however unlikely) was considered at the drafting stage.
- The contract may provide an obligation for one party to insure against the risk. If so, the risk is likely to be deemed as having been assumed and again, frustration is likely to fail.
- Were the circumstances unforeseen and unforeseeable? This might be questionable where the contract has been entered into this year for example, after the outbreak of Covid-19 was announced. The courts have not yet considered the concept of whether, once announced, the spread was a likelihood and therefore foreseeable. Arguably, whilst a spread of the virus might have been likely, the magnitude of the interference and the damage that Covid-19 has caused could not have been foreseeable by anyone.
What contracts are most likely affected?
- Goods not being delivered.
- Services unable to be provided.
- Cancellation of events.
The key is that the performance of the contract becomes impossible. Note however that if the contract could be performed in a different manner, a claim for frustration is likely to fail.
Is the impossibility to perform temporary?
We can say with certainty that lockdown is temporary. That said, the duration of lockdown is uncertain as is whether its lifting will be phased and the likely incremental improvement of the economy.
Impossibility to perform will bite where you are looking at specific events which have had to be cancelled. The delay, however, isn’t always a “frustrating event” and if a part of a contract can be performed, then this must be considered. The key is whether it is proportionate to do so.
Illegality – is it illegal to perform it?
A prohibition which effects the main purpose of the contract is likely to be frustrated. The prohibition must however effect the means of performance for a claim for Frustration to be successful. If it can be carried out in a different manner, frustration will fail. It is also necessary to look at whether part of the contract survives, i.e. is it severable and still capable of performance? The extent of the effect of any illegality might be that any surviving clauses constitute a “radical change”. If so, the contract may be frustrated despite the possibility of the clauses being capable of severance.
Issues of public policy will also arise in circumstances where performance wouldn’t necessarily be illegal, but performance would not be in the interest of public policy because of the current restrictions.
What about if performance is now totally pointless?
There will be many contracts where parties have contracted to pay for goods or services for which they now have no use whatsoever. Arguably, the purpose of the contract has therefore been frustrated. Such an argument has rarely succeeded but the current circumstances may well see new cases on this point.
For example, Company A contracts to buy a new piece of machinery. Company A now has no need for that machinery. All of Company A’s factories are closed, all profits are now non-existent and the finance that Company A anticipated to obtain is no longer available.
Performance of the contract is still possible. The fact that Company A now has no need for the machinery or the fact that it cannot obtain finance because of its lack of profits, is immaterial.
Covid-19 will undoubtedly result in an increase of frustration cases. Some will be clear cut such as the cancellation of events and supply contracts where time is of the essence. Where the situation is less clear, Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of express contractual terms regarding force majeure and the allocation of risk to the parties. A cleverly drafted force majeure clause can allow for the suspension of obligations during temporary frustrating events, thus avoiding the potentially catastrophic consequences of frustration. In the absence of such a clause, the key will be whether any delay is sufficient to constitute the radical and fundamental change that frustration requires.
A review of the scope of frustration of purpose also seems inevitable if we are to avoid a multitude of contracts being performed entirely unnecessarily, as a result of the commercial and economic consequences that Covid-19 has forced us to endure.
LIDW21: A view from London and India - How dispute avoidance can keep construction and infrastructure plans on track
Join us as we discuss the challenges of the possible rise in disputes in the construction and infrastructure sector in India
The Lawyer, New Law Journal, International Adviser, CDR Magazine and eprivateclient report on the firm's partner promotions
Charles Russell Speechlys promoted five lawyers to partner, effective 1 May 2021.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
ICC 2021 Rules
The ICC has recently updated its rules for arbitration: the new rules entered into force on 1 January 2021 (the “2021 Rules”).
The Lugano convention – the journey continues
The UK’s departure from the European Union has had the effect of leaving the UK outside of the Lugano Convention of 2007.
Adding claimants pre-service and amending outside the limitation period: pitfalls for the unwary
Sonia looks at a recent High Court judgment and its important guidance on the ability of claimants to be added to a claim before service
Joe Edwards, Simon Heatley and Lauren Kelly write for Practical Law on damages-based agreements
Law firms entering damages-based agreements face a catch-22.
UK property market continues to thrive
Damages-based agreements: an island of clarity in changing seas
Simon, Joe and Lauren look at a recent judgment which is a welcome island of clarity in the damages-based agreement sea of uncertainty.
Judicial Review Reform - Further Consultation
A further consultation on judicial review follows on from that issued only last year. Helen Hutton provides an update here.
Explore your Options: Top 10 Tips with Option Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips with option agreements - what should you know?
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Insolvency Legislation in the GCC
The interesting times of the last 14 months were preceded by the interesting times of the financial crisis of 2008/2009.
Guidance where Domestic Abuse alleged
Rhys Novak quoted by Citywealth on the ways companies can combat potential issues of fraud
Is fraud on the rise and should investors be wary?
Bribery & Corruption team successfully act in Italian bribery prosecution
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.
Helen Coward, Hugh Gunson and Guy Bud write for Tax Journal on remuneration arrangements in partnerships with mixed membership
Odey Asset Management LLP and HFFX LLP consider the law relating to remuneration arrangements in partnerships with mixed membership.
Mind the gap? Enforcing transition-period UK judgments in Switzerland revisited
A decision on an application to apply the Lugano Convention after the end of the UK’s transition period.