Frustration

Victor

There is a Hong Kong case that my law lecturer cited as an example of frustration of contract. I don't recollect the name, but the builder was meant to build something on top of a cliff. The cliff collapsed, no doubt the builder sued for his costs to date and the client sued for non-performance. In essence the contract was frustrated.

Now, move to Malahide on Friday evening. The man-made bridge collapsed, thereby preventing trains from operating. Some people will have monthly and annual tickets that can't be honoured. Irish Rail are providing buses for the moment and may be offering refunds.

Discuss, including mention of quantum.

walrusgumble

Victor wrote: »

There is a Hong Kong case that my law lecturer cited as an example of frustration of contract. I don't recollect the name, but the builder was meant to build something on top of a cliff. The cliff collapsed, no doubt the builder sued for his costs to date and the client sued for non-performance. In essence the contract was frustrated.

Now, move to Malahide on Friday evening. The man-made bridge collapsed, thereby preventing trains from operating. Some people will have monthly and annual tickets that can't be honoured. Irish Rail are providing buses for the moment and may be offering refunds. it's not like the people can try another train company either if they were concerned about being late for meetings, appointments etc.

Discuss, including mention of quantum.

this may sound ignorant regarding the doctrine of frustation, but would the fact that Irish Rail are making efforts, the best they can make at this time and limited time, in providing alternative transport to those willing to continue their custom with the group not help them in reducing any potential claims or the quantum of damages?

isn't there a test in ireland? - McGuill v Aer Lingus & United Airlines High Court Unreported 1983 that provided
1 - a party may bind himself by an absolute contract to perform something which subsequently becomes impossible
2 - frustation occurs when, without default of either party, a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed
3 the circumstances alleged to occassion frustration should be strictly scrutinised and the doctrine not be lightly applied
4- where circumstances alleged to frustation have arisen from the act or default of one of the parties, that party cannot rely on the doctrine
5- all the circumstances of the contract should be strictly scrutinised
6- the event must be an unexpected event
7 - if one party anticapated or should have anticapted the possibility of the event which is alleged to cause the frustration and did not incorportate a clause in the contract to deal with it, he should not be permitted to rely on the happening of the event as causing frustration

looks like irish rail are fecked then. isn't it part of their duty (statutory) to ensure all lines etc are travel worthy at all times?

Tom Young

This was an act of God or indeed force majeure - I thought you were referring to: Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki [1962] 1 All ER 474 - Doesn't sound the same.

The company is specifically performing their obligations in the sense of providing alternative modes of transport. I think also you might find in the terms and conditions of carriage that the route itself may not be stipulated to include a bridge in the nature of the one which has now collapsed.

Fails Hadley and Baxendale test, too remote etc.

Damages: None.

Summary: At least nobody died!

Frustration: Look at

McGuill v. Aer Lingus and United Airlines (unreported October 3 1983)

and;

Per Kenny J. in Brown v. Mulligan (Supreme Court, unreported 23 November 1977 at 11) “The event on which reliance is placed as terminating the contract must be unanticipated by the parties.” This is reiterated by McWilliam J. in McGuill at 13-14):

“The event must be an unexpected event. If one party anticipated or should have anticipated the possibility of the event which is alleged to cause the frustration and did not incorporated (sic) a clause into the contract to deal with it, he should not be permitted to rely on the happening of the event as causing frustration.”


There may be a tortious cause of action somewhere.

Tom

Victor

The bridge was known by Irish Rail to be a medium-term risk, something that a punter couldn't be expected to know.

walrusgumble

Victor wrote: »

The bridge was known by Irish Rail to be a medium-term risk, something that a punter couldn't be expected to know.

i understand that the last full examination of the bridge was done in 2007. would this be normal? could one say that they were in default? would public policy be argued in favour of irish rail in an effort to lower any claims?

Irish Rail would still be seen as doing the correct thing by still providing alternative transport?

Carawaystick

Tom Young wrote: »

The company is specifically performing their obligations in the sense of providing alternative modes of transport.

They aren't though.
To get from Balbriggan to Dublin, you needed to get a train to Skerries train station, then walk to a bus stop and get a bus to Dublin. Maybe if the bus served the train station this'd be OK.

There was a service leaving Malahide after pub closing time on weeknights, there is now no service to get to Donabate or Lusk that leaves Malahide after closing time.