1 / 50

George Mason School of Law

George Mason School of Law. Contracts II Frustration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu. Frustration vs. Impracticability. Frustration is the older doctrine, impracticability the newer one How to tell them apart—or does it matter?. Frustration vs. Impracticability.

mcilvain
Download Presentation

George Mason School of Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. George Mason School of Law Contracts II Frustration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

  2. Frustration vs. Impracticability • Frustration is the older doctrine, impracticability the newer one • How to tell them apart—or does it matter?

  3. Frustration vs. Impracticability • Both might be invoked for events before or after formation

  4. Frustration: Before or After • Restatement 266(2): Where, at the time a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated • Restatement 265: “Where, after a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated

  5. Impracticability: Before or After • Restatement 266(1): Where, at the time a contract is made, a party’s performance under it is impracticable • Restatement 261: “Where, after a contract is made, a party’s performance is made impracticable

  6. The Restatement understanding Formation of Contract Impracticability Frustration Mistake Impracticability Frustration Time

  7. Frustration vs. Impracticability • Is there a difference in scope?

  8. Examples of Impracticability • Death or Incapacity of a person: 262 • Res extincta etc.: 263 • Govt reg: 264

  9. Examples of Frustration • Restatement § 265 • Illustration 3: Res extincta: Hotel destroyed • Illustration 4: Govt reg

  10. Impracticability: An economic focus • Teitelbam in Alcoa: “focus on greatly increased costs” • Traynor in Lloyd v Murphy: expected value of performance is destroyed

  11. Frustration:A psychological focus? • Teitelbaum: “focuses on a party’s severe disappointment caused by circumstances that frustrate his purpose in entering into the contract” • Traynor: extreme hardship, value of performance destroyed

  12. Impracticability vs. FrustrationWho are the parties? • Frustration: focus is on consumer of goods or services • Impracticabilty: focus is on provider of goods or services, where performance is impossible or vastly more expenses

  13. Impracticability vs. FrustrationWho are the parties? • Frustration focuses on consumers? • Taylor v. Caldwell (Surrey Gardens) • Krell v. Henry

  14. Impracticability vs. FrustrationWho are the parties? • Impracticabilty focuses on providers? • Howell v. Coupland • Aluminum v. Essex

  15. Frustration: Krell v. Henry 760

  16. Frustration: Krell v. Henry 56 Pall Mall

  17. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • What was the amount of the license?

  18. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • What was the amount of the license? • About $400 for two days.

  19. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Was performance of the license impossible, in the sense of Taylor v. Caldwell?

  20. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Was performance of the license impossible, in the sense of Taylor v. Caldwell? • Was the purpose to take the room for two days, or to take the room to see the Coronation procession?

  21. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Suppose the agreement had been for a one-month lease and not a two day license?

  22. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Suppose the agreement had been for a one-month lease and not a two day license? • Is Paradine still good law?

  23. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • 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?

  24. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • 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.

  25. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • 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…

  26. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • A builder undertakes to build a house but discovers that the land is unsuitable for a building. • Stees and “Work before pay”

  27. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • A builder undertakes to build a house but discovers that the land is unsuitable for a building. • Cf. Restatement 263, illus. 4

  28. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Who should bear the risk of the King’s illness?

  29. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Who should bear the risk? • Who was in the best position to predict that the King would come down with appendicitis?

  30. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Who should bear the risk? • What’s wrong with applying Paradine and assigning the risk to the spectator?

  31. Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Who should bear the risk? • What’s wrong with applying Paradine and assigning the risk to the spectator? • Why might the spectator argue that this would amount to a windfall for the owner?

  32. Lloyd v. Murphy 763 Wilshire Bvld. at Santa Monica, 1940

  33. Lloyd v. Murphy Wilshire Bvld. at Almont, 1940

  34. Lloyd v. Murphy American Academy of Motion Pictures, Wilshire and Almont, Beverly Hills CA

  35. Lloyd v. Murphy • Does it matter that this was a lease?

  36. Lloyd v. Murphy • Does it matter that this was a lease? • Williston at 765 • “No case…” p.767

  37. Lloyd v. Murphy • “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” • “Litigation would be encouraged…”

  38. Lloyd v. Murphy • Was the restriction to new car sales a nearly total destruction of the purpose?

  39. Lloyd v. Murphy • Was the restriction to new car sales nearly total destruction of the purpose? • Given the waiver… • “It was just the location…”

  40. Lloyd v. Murphy • Who is in the best position to assume the risk?

  41. Lloyd v. Murphy • Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor?

  42. Lloyd v. Murphy • Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? • “It cannot be said the risk of war was so remote a contingency” • Surprise attack? What surprise?

  43. Lloyd v. Murphy • Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? • “It cannot be said the risk of war was so remote a contingency“ • 1940 National Defense Act and Detroit’s response

  44. Common Purpose Requirement • Edwards p. 771 • Why might this make sense?

  45. Common Purpose Requirement • Krug International at 771

  46. Common Purpose Requirement • An information-forcing rule?

  47. Change in Government Regulations • Restatement § 264

  48. Change in Government Regulations: Atlas 724 Atlas Corp. uranium “tailings” pile

  49. Changes in Government Regulations • Goshie Farms p. 768

  50. Substantiality Requirement • Cf. Restatement 152 on mistake • “material effect on the agreed exchanges” • Should this be implied in frustration cases? • Haas p. 770

More Related