| Taylor v Caldwell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench |
| Decided | 6 May 1863 |
| Citation(s) | [1863] EWHC QB J1, (1863) 3 B & S 826, 122 ER 309 |
| Transcript(s) | EWHC QB J1 |
| Case opinions | |
| Blackburn J | |
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .(December 2022) |
Taylor v Caldwell [1] is a landmark English contract law case, with an opinion delivered by Mr Justice Blackburn which established the doctrine of common law impossibility.
Caldwell & Bishop owned Surrey Gardens & Music Hall, and agreed to rent it out to Taylor & Lewis for £100 a day. Taylor had planned to use the music hall for four concerts and day and evening fetes on Monday 17 June, Monday 15 July, Monday 5 August, and Monday 19 August 1861. They were going to provide a variety of extravagant entertainments including a singing performance by Sims Reeves, a thirty-five to forty-piece military and quadrille band, al fresco entertainments, minstrels, fireworks and full illuminations, a ballet or divertissement, a wizard and Grecian statues, tight rope performances, rifle galleries, air gun shooting, Chinese and Parisian games, boats on the lake, and aquatic sports.
According to the contract the parties had signed, the defendants were to provide most of the British performers. Taylor & Lewis agreed to pay one hundred pounds sterling in the evening of the day of each concert by a crossed cheque, and also to find and provide, at their own cost, all the necessary artistes for the concerts, including Mr. Sims Reeves. Then, on 11 June 1861, a week before the first concert was to be given, the music hall burned to the ground. The plaintiffs sued the music hall owners for breach of contract for failing to rent out the music hall to them. There was no clause within the contract itself which allocated the risk to the underlying facilities, except for the phrase "God's will permitting" at the end of the contract.
Mr Justice Blackburn began his judgement by finding that the agreement between the parties was a contract, despite their use of the term "lease". Under the common law of property in England at the time, under a lease the lessee would obtain legal possession of the premises during the lease period, while the "lease" at issue in this case specified that legal possession would remain with the defendants.
Blackburn J reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract. He further reasoned that the continued existence of the Music Hall in Surrey Gardens was an implied condition essential for the fulfilment of the contract. The destruction of the music hall was the fault of neither party and rendered the performance of the contract by either party impossible. Blackburn J cited the civil code of France and the Roman law for the proposition that when the existence of a particular thing is essential to a contract, and the thing is destroyed by no fault of the party selling it, the parties are freed from obligation to deliver the thing. He further analogized to a situation in which a contract requiring personal performance is made, and the party to perform dies, when under English common law the party's executors are not held liable. Blackburn J thus held that both parties were excused from their obligations under their contract.
Until this case, parties to a contract were held to be absolutely bound and a failure to perform was not excused by radically changed circumstances. Instead, the contract was breached, and that gave rise to a claim for damages. This ruling, although quite narrow, opened the door for the modern doctrine of contract avoidance by frustration.
In legal usage in the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible. An act of God may amount to an exception to liability in contracts or it may be an "insured peril" in an insurance policy. In Scots law the equivalent term is damnum fatale.
In contract law, force majeure is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic, or sudden legal change prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. Explicitly excluded is any event described as an act of God, which covers a separate domain and legally differs, though it is related to contract law. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not entirely excuse a party's non-performance but suspend it for the duration of the force majeure.
A condition subsequent is a philosophical and legal term referring to a defined event which terminates a proposition or a contractual obligation. In contrast to a condition precedent, a condition subsequent brings the event to an end, rather than being necessary for to the event or obligation to occur.
In contract law, impossibility is an excuse for the nonperformance of duties under a contract, based on a change in circumstances, the nonoccurrence of which was an underlying assumption of the contract, that makes performance of the contract literally impossible.
Frustration of purpose, in law, is a defense to enforcement of a contract. Frustration of purpose occurs when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, and both parties knew of the principal purpose at the time the contract was made. Despite frequently arising as a result of government action, any third party or even nature can frustrate a contracting party's primary purpose for entering into the contract. The concept is also called commercial frustration.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 is an English contract law case. In it, Blackburn J set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct when entering into a contract. The case regarded a mistake made by Mr. Hughes, a horse trainer, who bought a quantity of oats that were the same as a sample he had been shown. However, Hughes had misidentified the kind of oats: his horse could not eat them, and refused to pay for them. Smith, the oat supplier, sued for Hughes to complete the sale as agreed. The court sided with Smith, as he provided the oats Hughes agreed to buy. That Hughes made a mistake was his own fault, as he had not been misled by Smith. Since Smith had made no fault, there was no mutual mistake, and the sale contract was still valid.
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 is an English case which sets forth the doctrine of frustration of purpose in contract law. It is one of a group of cases, known as the "coronation cases", which arose from events surrounding the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra in 1902.
Royal Surrey Gardens were pleasure gardens in Newington, Surrey, London in the Victorian period, slightly east of The Oval. The gardens occupied about 15 acres (6.1 ha) to the east side of Kennington Park Road, including a lake of about 3 acres (1.2 ha). It was the site of Surrey Zoological Gardens and Surrey Music Hall.
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109, is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. It concerns the question of when specific performance of a contractual obligation will be granted and the measure of expectation damages.
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.
The Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1878–79) LR 4 Ex D 216 is an English contract law case, which concerns the "postal rule". It contains an important dissenting judgment by Bramwell LJ, who wished to dispose of it.
Hochster v De La Tour[1853] EWHC J72 (QB) is a landmark English contract law case on anticipatory breach of contract. It held that if a contract is repudiated before the date of performance, damages may be claimed immediately.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms, a category between "warranties" and "conditions".
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that,
the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.
Implied terms in English law are default rules for contracts on points where the terms which contracting parties expressly choose are silent, or mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen. The purpose of implied terms is often to supplement a contractual agreement in the interest of making the deal effective for the purpose of business, to achieve fairness between the parties or to relieve hardship.
Jackson v Union Marine Insurance (1874) 10 Common Pleas 125 is an early English contract law case concerning the right to terminate an agreement.
Frustration is an English contract law doctrine that acts as a device to set aside contracts where an unforeseen event either renders contractual obligations impossible, or radically changes the party's principal purpose for entering into the contract. Historically, there had been no way of setting aside an impossible contract after formation; it was not until 1863, and the case of Taylor v Caldwell, that the beginnings of the doctrine of frustration were established. Whilst the doctrine has seen expansion from its inception, it is still narrow in application; Lord Roskill stated that it is "not lightly to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains".
Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683 is a case on the subject of frustration of purpose. It is one of a group of cases arising out of the same event, known as the coronation cases.
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 is a case on English contract law and on maritime salvage. It investigates when a common mistake within a contractual agreement will render it void.
Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract.