George Mason School of Law Contracts II Frustration
- Slides: 50
George Mason School of Law Contracts II Frustration F. H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu. edu 1
Frustration vs. Impracticability o Frustration is the older doctrine, impracticability the newer one o How to tell them apart—or does it matter? 2
Frustration vs. Impracticability o Both might be invoked for events before or after formation 3
Frustration: Before or After n Restatement 266(2): Where, at the time a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated n Restatement 265: “Where, after a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated 4
Impracticability: Before or After n Restatement 266(1): Where, at the time a contract is made, a party’s performance under it is impracticable n Restatement 261: “Where, after a contract is made, a party’s performance is made impracticable 5
The Restatement understanding Formation of Contract Mistake Impracticability Frustration Time 6
Frustration vs. Impracticability o Is there a difference in scope? 7
Examples of Impracticability o Death or Incapacity of a person: 262 o Res extincta etc. : 263 o Govt reg: 264 8
Examples of Frustration o Restatement § 265 o Illustration 3: Res extincta: Hotel destroyed o Illustration 4: Govt reg 9
Impracticability: An economic focus o Teitelbam in Alcoa: “focus on greatly increased costs” o Traynor in Lloyd v Murphy: expected value of performance is destroyed 10
Frustration: A psychological focus? o Teitelbaum: “focuses on a party’s severe disappointment caused by circumstances that frustrate his purpose in entering into the contract” o Traynor: extreme hardship, value of performance destroyed 11
Impracticability vs. Frustration Who are the parties? o Frustration: focus is on consumer of goods or services o Impracticabilty: focus is on provider of goods or services, where performance is impossible or vastly more expenses 12
Impracticability vs. Frustration Who are the parties? o Frustration focuses on consumers? n Taylor v. Caldwell (Surrey Gardens) n Krell v. Henry 13
Impracticability vs. Frustration Who are the parties? o Impracticabilty focuses on providers? n Howell v. Coupland n Aluminum v. Essex 14
Frustration: Krell v. Henry 760 15
Frustration: Krell v. Henry 56 Pall Mall 16
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o What was the amount of the license? 17
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o What was the amount of the license? n About $400 for two days. 18
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Was performance of the license impossible, in the sense of Taylor v. Caldwell? 19
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Was performance of the license impossible, in the sense of Taylor v. Caldwell? n Was the purpose to take the room for two days, or to take the room to see the Coronation procession? 20
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Suppose the agreement had been for a one-month lease and not a two day license? 21
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Suppose the agreement had been for a one-month lease and not a two day license? n Is Paradine still good law? 22
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o I am a promoter and hire a hall for a musical show. On the date of the show a prominent politician dies and I cancel the show. Do I have to pay for the hall? 23
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o I hire a limo to take me to Baltimore, telling the driver I want to see the Orioles’ opening day. That morning I learn that the game is rained out. I cancel the limo. 24
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o I purchase tickets from a ticket-seller for a New York play, now in try-outs in New Haven. Subsequently, it is conceded, the play is discovered to be a bomb… 25
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o A builder undertakes to build a house but discovers that the land is unsuitable for a building. n Stees and “Work before pay” 26
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o A builder undertakes to build a house but discovers that the land is unsuitable for a building. n Cf. Restatement 263, illus. 4 27
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Who should bear the risk of the King’s illness? 28
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Who should bear the risk? n Who was in the best position to predict that the King would come down with appendicitis? 29
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Who should bear the risk? n What’s wrong with applying Paradine and assigning the risk to the spectator? 30
Frustration: Krell v. Henry o Who should bear the risk? n What’s wrong with applying Paradine and assigning the risk to the spectator? n Why might the spectator argue that this would amount to a windfall for the owner? 31
Lloyd v. Murphy 763 Wilshire Bvld. at Santa Monica, 1940 32
Lloyd v. Murphy 33 Wilshire Bvld. at Almont, 1940
Lloyd v. Murphy American Academy of Motion Pictures, Wilshire and Almont, Beverly Hills CA 34
Lloyd v. Murphy o Does it matter that this was a lease? 35
Lloyd v. Murphy o Does it matter that this was a lease? n � Williston at 765 n “No case…” p. 767 36
Lloyd v. Murphy o “The consequences of applying the doctrine of frustration to a leasehold involving less than a total or nearly total destruction of the value… would be undesirable” o “Litigation would be encouraged…” 37
Lloyd v. Murphy o Was the restriction to new car sales a nearly total destruction of the purpose? 38
Lloyd v. Murphy o Was the restriction to new car sales nearly total destruction of the purpose? n Given the waiver… n “It was just the location…” 39
Lloyd v. Murphy o Who is in the best position to assume the risk? 40
Lloyd v. Murphy o Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? 41
Lloyd v. Murphy o Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? n “It cannot be said the risk of war was so remote a contingency” o Surprise attack? What surprise? 42
Lloyd v. Murphy o Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? n “It cannot be said the risk of war was so remote a contingency“ n 1940 National Defense Act and Detroit’s response 43
Common Purpose Requirement o Edwards p. 771 n Why might this make sense? 44
Common Purpose Requirement o Krug International at 771 45
Common Purpose Requirement o An information-forcing rule? 46
Change in Government Regulations o Restatement § 264 47
Change in Government Regulations: Atlas 724 Atlas Corp. uranium “tailings” pile 48
Changes in Government Regulations o Goshie Farms p. 768 49
Substantiality Requirement o Cf. Restatement 152 on mistake n “material effect on the agreed exchanges” o Should this be implied in frustration cases? n Haas p. 770 50
- Cornelia wilbur
- Gmu off campus housing
- George mason average gpa
- Gmu hap
- George mason federalist or anti federalist
- George mason university registration
- George mason anti federalist
- Eli gmu
- George mason orientation
- Gmu health informatics
- What is pre incorporation contracts in company law
- Self fulfilling prophecy example
- Frustration-aggression principle
- Psychology chapter 13
- Frustration anxiety and tension
- Instrumental aggression
- Hostile aggression
- Magnetic frustration
- How to deal with frustration
- Frustrated simile
- Hypostature
- What is frustration
- Llll heat
- Frustration aggression theory in sport
- North mason school district levy
- Newton's first law and second law and third law
- Si unit of newton's first law
- Boyle's law charles law avogadro's law
- Constant of avogadro's law
- George washington x king george iii
- George washington and john adams venn diagram
- Water contracts (gets smaller) when it freezes.
- Computer contracts
- Litter picking contracts
- Operation contracts
- International contracts
- Item rate contract
- Forward contract hedging
- Mailbox rule contracts
- Mailbox rule contracts
- Parts of contracts
- Blaockchain
- Mailbox rule contracts
- Contract finance
- Contract vs agreement
- Mailbox rule contracts
- Futures definition
- Classification of contracts
- Introduction to contract law
- According to integrative social contracts theory
- Mailbox rule contracts