Except it is established that the destruction of the subject matter of the contract (Room) was as a result of the act of “X” then contract “Y” can only recover the amount paid for the room (N50) as the obligation of the parties to the contract has been discharged by frustration. See TAYLOR v CALDWELL (1863) 3B & S 826, 122 309.
To bring to an end a contract means the termination of the mutual obligation of parties arising from an agreement entered into by them. You can end a contract in any of the following ways: i. By mutual agreement with this other party to the contract that makes ii. By reason of a circumstance where it impossible to carry out the terms of the contract. (frustration) iii. By breach of parties to the contract iv. By fulfillment of the obligation arising from the contract. See CUTTER v POWELL (1795) 6 TR 320 THORNTEN’S (LAGOS) Co LTD v THERESA SASSIN (1926) 6 NLR; PARADINCE v JANE (1558-1774) ALL E.R REP 172.
Part performance will be sufficient performance to discharge a person from his obligation to a contract in the following; a. Where the contract is divisible. That is, where the contract is periodic. b. Where the part performance has been accepted by the other party c. Where the act of one of the partied prevent the other party from completing his obligation in the contract. d. Where the part performance is substantial if the above are satisfies, the party relying on part performance could claim payment on the basis of their work done (quantum meruit) See H. DAKIN & Co v LEE (1916) I KB 566
No, “A” has not discharge his obligation to “B” in the contract. In-fact the action of “A” is a breach of contract and “B” is at liberty to reject the 30 Abia yams and retain the 70 Yola tuber of yam. He may even reject the entire tuber of yams. Where a contract is entire and not divided, the person alleging performance of his obligation must show that he has exactly completed his performance. CUTTER v POWELL (1795) 6TR 320.
A contract will be discharge by frustration in the following instances: i. Where there is destruction of the subject matter of the contract. ii. Where the contract is one of personal service, then the death or one of the parties to the contract will discharge the party of his obligation under the contract. iii. Where there is a change in law that makes it impossible to perform the contract. iv. Where the contract is supposed to be performed at the occurrence of a certain event however the event did not occur. See DUNN v CURZON (1911) 104 LT 66 TAYLOR v CALDWELL (1863) 3B & 5 826, 122 ER 309; ROBINSON v DAVIDSON (1871) LR 6 EX 269
Where a contract becomes impossible to be performed as a result of frustration, the following effect will occur: i. The obligation of the parties the contract will no longer be binding. ii. Money paid as consideration before the frustration event occurs will be recoverable. See CHANDLER v WEBSTER (1863) 3 B AND 5 826; FIBROSA SPOLKA AKEYINA v FAIR BAIRN LAWSON COMBE BARBOUR LTD (1943) A.C 32
Under the western Nigeria contract law 1959 and Law reform (contracts) Act 1961 respectively; SECTION 4(2) and 4(3) provides for the following: i. Money paid before the frustrating event is recoverable. ii. Money payable before the frustrating event cease to be payable iii. A party to whom money has been paid may recover the value of his expenses from the money he received. SECTION 4(5) also allows a person to receive on quantum meruit the value of any “valuable benefit” conferred on the other party to the contract by him before the frustrating event occurred.
Where a person refuses to perform his own obligation in a contractual agreement, such person is said to have breach the contract and depending on the circumstances, such breach may free the other party from performing his own obligation. However, breach of contract may allow the injured party to sue for compensation or specific performance and depending on the nature of the contract the injured party may even cancel the agreement. Breach of contract may occur in the following ways: i. Failure of one party to the contract to perform his own obligation ii. Expenses renunciation of the contract iii. Implied renunciation of the contract e.g where the action of one party to the contract makes the performance of the contract impossible. See THORNTEN’S (LAGOS) Co Ltd v THERESA SASSIN (1926) 6 AMI Ors v SUTTERLAND (1919) IKB 615.
i. Where the frustration is self-inflicted the contract cannot be one said to be affected by frustration. ii. Where the contract is a lease agreement for a long period of time and the frustration is only for a short period. See MARITIME NATIONAL FISH LTD v OCEAN TRAWLERS LTD (1935) A.C
Ordinarily, money due and paid after the frustrating even cannot be recovered? However? This is not the case anymore as the court in FIBROSA SPOLKA AKEYINA v FAIRBAIRN LAWSON GOMBE BARBOUR LTD (1943) A.C as the house of Lords had discredited the decision in CHANDLER v WEBSTER and allowed the appellants to recover in quasi-contract on the ground that the consideration is respect of the contract has wholly failed.
No, the principle above will not apply; i. Go any contract of insurance ii. To any chapter-party, except a time charter-party by way of demise or to any contract for the carriage of goods by sea. iii. For a Lagos state, it will not apply to any contract affected by Sec 7 of the sales of goods Act 1893. See SECTION 7 SALES OF GOODS ACT 1893; SECTION 3(5) LAW REFORM (CONTRACTS) ACT 1961
Where the negligence of a party makes it impossible for a contract to be performed such party cannot ordinarily rely on the principle of frustration to avoid his obligation in the contract, However, if it party can show that the frustration of the contract is as a result of no fault of his, then he will not bound by the contract. See OCEAN TRAMP TANKERS CORPORATION V.D SOUFRACHI (THE EUGENA) (1964) 2 226.
The principle laid down in the above stated cases did not state the position of the other party who had partly performed his obligation. Infact, from the case of FIBROSA SPOLKA AKEYINA v FAIRBAIRN LAWSON GOMBE BARBOUR LTD, the other party is not contemplated as such they will have to bear any liability or expenses incurred. However this position is only applicable in the Eastern and Northern parts of Nigeria and not Lagos and the western part of Nigeria.