Evolution of Doctrine of Frustration
The established rule of contracts provides that the parties in a contract must fulfill their part of obligations as per the contract. In any event of a breach, the party who is responsible for breaching the contract must compensate the aggrieved party for the damages caused to him.
The Doctrine of Frustration is an exception to this general rule. The Doctrine of Frustration discusses the impossibility of the performance of the contract. This doctrine states that the contract could not be performed by either of the parties for a reason that is beyond the limits of control, and when the contract’s performance becomes a supervening impossibility, the performance of such a contract becomes frustrated or it becomes impossible, complicated, or illegal. Frustration in a contract can arise due to any unforeseen, impossible events and events out of control of the parties to the contract.
To rectify the deficiencies in the theory of absolute liability, the concept of the Doctrine of Frustration was introduced. The court for the very first time recognized this doctrine in the case of Atkinson v. Ritchie (1809) where the court held that the loading of a British ship on a foreign port was impossible due to the outbreak of war between the two countries. Hence, the contract is frustrated.