Taylor v Caldwell
A contract is discharged if its performance becomes impossible because the subject matter is destroyed without fault.
Facts
Caldwell owned the Surrey Gardens and Music Hall in London. He agreed to let Taylor use the hall and gardens on four days in the summer of 1861 to hold four grand concerts and day and night fêtes, at a charge of £100 a day. Before the first concert, the music hall was completely destroyed by fire, through no fault of either party, making the concerts impossible. Taylor had spent money on advertising and preparations, and he sued Caldwell for breach of contract.
Legal principle
The court held that both parties were excused from performance, so Taylor's claim failed. Blackburn J said that where, from the nature of the contract, it appears that the parties must have known from the beginning that it could not be fulfilled unless a particular specified thing continued to exist, the contract is subject to an implied condition that the parties will be excused if, before breach, performance becomes impossible because the thing perishes without the fault of either party. The existence of the music hall was essential to the performance of the contract. This was the foundation of the doctrine of frustration.
Related cases on frustration
- Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch)
- Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696
- Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage and Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2007] EWCA Civ 547, [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 517
- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
- Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226
- Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683
- J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
- Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874) LR 10 CP 125
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
