Anthony! Your lectures are fun and really makes me enjoy this course, despite its difficulty and intense content that is DRIVING ME CRAZY :( I am a mature student juggling a zillion things and your videos make my life so much easier to comprehend. You are an angel ! I have a question, could you explain the difference between frustration and repudiation due to inability to perform? In repudiation, you gave an example of someone who needs to hold for ex a licence to do some work; so at contract time, they had the necessary license that subsequently expired and so they are no longer able to continue with contract, esp if license is needed to complete contract - suddenly it becomes illegal for the party to do the works. If we compare this with Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd 1935 - which also involved a failure to obtain a license. In this case, the court held that (1) There was no frustration of the charterparty as the absence of a licence was due to the fact that the appellants’ choice of vessels, which were to be granted licences. (2) Therefore, the appellants remained liable for the hire of the vessel. Thus, there was faukt with one of the parties, namely Maritime National Fish, for failure to obtain the requisite licenses. So where one of the parties is at fault in any way whatsover, and in this case, the fact that the Maritime National Fish had to apply for licenses and was not given old licenses it had applied for, this was Can you explain what the difference between both is? Thank you... Lulwa
Hi Lulwa! Wow, that one is a bit detailed. LOL I do hope you're not trying to trick me into doing your assignment for you ;-) When you look at those cases, though, the big difference is whether the defaulting party could have done anything to avoid the situation. In the Ocean Trawlers case, the operators actually induced the licence loss by their choice of vessel, and so it can't be frustration. Frustration ONLY occurs when neither party is to blame for the frustrating circumstances. So, neither Krell nor Henry gave the King appendicitis or cancelled the coronation parade :)
@@AnthsLawSchool thank you! I promise I would never trick you to do my work ;) i guess i was overthinking and over analysing! I understood your explanation. I sat for my exam last week! fingers crossed 😫 Your videos really helped me! God Bless you! Lulwa
![CAN'T FULFILL YOUR CONTRACT? The Doctrine of FRUSTRATION Explained. [Toronto, ON Law Firm!]](/img/n.gif)
you are so good, easy to understand the hard legal terms. This is simply too good. Thanks Anthony.
Thanks so much for taking the time to say such kind words, Dipak. Sincerely appreciated :)
Hi...yes 'totally' agree...this was gold. Thank you once again for your great explanation, and making it easy to understand with great examples.
You are very welcome :)
Excellent explanation of Doctrine of Frustration. Anthony made this subject easier to understand. Thank you.
You are very welcome :)
this is saving my semester.
me to very plain and simple with great examples. Very easy listening and clear voice.
That's awesome, Aaron. I hope the rest of your studies were successful!
Great lesson thanks.
Great lecture for exam revision. Greetings from Vic Uni law student in Melbourne.
Best of luck for your exams, John!
@@AnthsLawSchool Your lecture videos on Frustration and estoppel helped me get an HD in contacts. Thanks for sharing your videos.
Great lecture!
Thank you!
Is this based on uk law
Anthony! Your lectures are fun and really makes me enjoy this course, despite its difficulty and intense content that is DRIVING ME CRAZY :( I am a mature student juggling a zillion things and your videos make my life so much easier to comprehend. You are an angel ! I have a question, could you explain the difference between frustration and repudiation due to inability to perform? In repudiation, you gave an example of someone who needs to hold for ex a licence to do some work; so at contract time, they had the necessary license that subsequently expired and so they are no longer able to continue with contract, esp if license is needed to complete contract - suddenly it becomes illegal for the party to do the works. If we compare this with Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd 1935 - which also involved a failure to obtain a license. In this case, the court held that (1) There was no frustration of the charterparty as the absence of a licence was due to the fact that the appellants’ choice of vessels, which were to be granted licences.
(2) Therefore, the appellants remained liable for the hire of the vessel. Thus, there was faukt with one of the parties, namely Maritime National Fish, for failure to obtain the requisite licenses. So where one of the parties is at fault in any way whatsover, and in this case, the fact that the Maritime National Fish had to apply for licenses and was not given old licenses it had applied for, this was Can you explain what the difference between both is? Thank you... Lulwa
Hi Lulwa! Wow, that one is a bit detailed. LOL I do hope you're not trying to trick me into doing your assignment for you ;-)
When you look at those cases, though, the big difference is whether the defaulting party could have done anything to avoid the situation. In the Ocean Trawlers case, the operators actually induced the licence loss by their choice of vessel, and so it can't be frustration. Frustration ONLY occurs when neither party is to blame for the frustrating circumstances. So, neither Krell nor Henry gave the King appendicitis or cancelled the coronation parade :)
@@AnthsLawSchool thank you! I promise I would never trick you to do my work ;) i guess i was overthinking and over analysing! I understood your explanation. I sat for my exam last week! fingers crossed 😫 Your videos really helped me! God Bless you! Lulwa
"And what that means is the losses must lie where they fall" and what that means is.........😂😂😂