Doctrine of frustration causes and effects
Whether the delay is sufficient to frustrate the contract depends on the time when the event that gave rise to the delay occurred; see Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel and Co  AC Conclusion I.
Doctrine of frustration slideshare
In other words, a contract should be held frustrated if it would be unjust to cling to it in a changed situation. Since only existing contracts can be frustrated, the doctrine of frustration is part of the broader problem of impossibility. In this sense frustration is a unique "doctrine of excuse" for not performing Downes, , which can only be applied under special circumstances. The final result, however, is similar to English frustration. So the contract did not become radically different and was, therefore, not frustrated. However, where a contract does not provide 'specific' goods, as required for the Act to operate, it will fall under common law rules. Conclusion The above discussion has shown that the doctrine of frustration is by no means easy to apply, especially in regard to the fact that it is an exception to the strict principle of contractual obligations. In order to illustrate the rather abstract concept I will contrast two cases in detail and point to a few other ones in more general terms. Due to the King's illness, a planned coronation was postponed. It only applies to situations where a contract becomes impossible after it has been agreed on. In this case the use of a particular thing or person should have been stipulated in the contract to prove that it is an essential part of the agreement.
It could be inferred from the dealings of the parties that the principal aim of the hiring was the witnessing of the coronation. Afterwards I will have a more detailed look on the concept of frustration in English law and continue by briefly outlining the corresponding principles in other legal systems.
It was held the contract was impossible to perform;  Judge Blackburn stated that the absolute liability set forth in Paradine v Jane would not apply in the instant case, as there was an implied condition that the music hall would be in existence at the date of the planned concerts.
In the leading case in frustration, Taylor v Caldwella musical hall hired with the purpose of holding concerts, was destroyed by fire. In any case, it should not be forgotten that "impossibility" in the sense of law is not only physical, but also practical and of much wider scope than destruction of the subject matter.
In Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl a seller was not freed from shipping goods from Sudan to Germany because of the closure of the Suez Canal.
The final result, however, is similar to English frustration. There are different events where the contract can be frustrated for the following see Owens, ff.
Frustration of contract
The peculiarity of the German approach is the distinction between cases where anyone would be unable to perform objective impossibility and those where only the particular debtor is prevented from performing subjective impossibility. The agreement of the parties is important when considering whether it has been frustrated. It was held he could still choose a different route, hence performance was not impossible. Finally, frustration can occur if a contract could still be carried out but would be radically different from what was envisaged by the parties entering into the agreement. If delays occur through no one's fault that may be in the contemplation of the contract, and there may be provision for extra time being given: to that extent the other party takes the risk of delay. Furthermore, contracts can be frustrated because of supervening physical impossibility. Although the naval review was cancelled, the steamboat could still have been used for a cruise. It may be that delay could be of a character so different from anything contemplated that the contract was at an end, but in this case, in my opinion, the most that could be said is that the delay was greater in degree than was to be expected.
This is, of course, always very much dependent on the circumstances and facts of a special case.
based on 98 review