From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contract Law
Part of the common law series
Contract theory
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance  · Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule  · Invitation to treat
Consideration
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity to contract
Duress  · Undue influence
Illusory promise  · Statute of frauds
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake  · Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose  · Impossibility
Unclean hands  · Unconscionability
Illegality  · Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment  · Delegation
Novation  · Third party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation  · Cover
Exclusion clause  · Efficient breach
Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Penal damages  · Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel
Quantum meruit
Subsets: Conflict of law Commercial law
Other areas of the common law
Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

Frustration of purpose is a term used in the law of contract to describe a defense to an action for non-performance based on the occurrence of an unforeseen event which makes performance impossible, illegal or radically different from what was originally intended. A common situation is that the subject matter of the contract - a house or a car for example - is unintentionally destroyed.

Generally, the non-performance is not excused. If the seller retained the risk of loss from damage or destruction, then the non-performance will likely be excused. However, if it is the buyer who carries the risk of loss, performance will not be excused. A seller will not be excused for nonperformance of an agreement to deliver a commodity. For example, if A agrees to sell B 100 bushels of corn, and A's own crops are destroyed in an accident, A is still contractually obliged to sell B 100 bushels of corn because A can still obtain the corn elsewhere for the sale.

Frustration of purpose also arises as a defense where one party to the contract dies, if that party was uniquely necessary to the performance of the contract. Passage of a subsequent law that makes performance illegal will also excuse nonperformance under this doctrine.

The leading case in English law on the subject is the famous 1903 case of Krell v. Henry, which concerned a party who had rented a room for the purpose of watching the coronation procession of Edward VII.

Frustration of purpose is distinguishable from the doctrine of impossibility/impracticability in that frustration of purpose is typically used by the buyer and Impossibility is used by the seller.

This concept is also called commercial frustration.