Abstract
The law of frustration is of significant interest to many legal scholars and practitioners. This interest is reflected in the sheer volume of writings on the topic. These writings typically oppose or support the doctrine. This paper takes the latter stance. Several principles have been advanced to justify the doctrine, such as the ‘implied term’ theory and the ‘foundation of the contract’ test. These justifications are arguably weak and inconsistent. Nonetheless, this paper contends that the existence and continued use of the doctrine to discharge certain forms of contractual obligations is still warranted and justified. Such a justification stems from the view that the doctrine is consistent with modern trends towards more regulation and control of contracts by the judiciary however limited such a role might seem.
Som, Eric M, Does the Law of Frustration of Contract Lack Any Principled Justification? (May 8, 2017).
First posted 2017-11-21 06:46:08
Leave a Reply