Contract Law · defense
Frustration of purpose is a legal doctrine that allows a party to a contract to be excused from performance due to a significant change in circumstances that fundamentally defeats the contract's intended purpose. To succeed on this claim, the frustrating event must be unforeseen and not due to the fault of the party seeking relief.
There must be a valid contract in place between the parties ceasing performance.
What to prove: The party asserting frustration of purpose must show that a valid and enforceable contract existed at the time of the frustrating event.
The contract must have an underlying purpose that was known to both parties at the time of formation.
What to prove: The claimant must demonstrate that the purpose of the contract was a shared understanding that was integral to entering into the agreement.
An unforeseen event must have occurred that substantially frustrates the contract's purpose.
What to prove: The party must establish that the event was not anticipated and fundamentally altered the nature of the contractual obligations, rendering them ineffective.
There must be a clear causal link between the frustrating event and the inability to fulfill the contract.
What to prove: The claimant must prove that the frustrating event directly caused the failure to perform under the contract.
The frustrating event must not be the fault of the party invoking frustration.
What to prove: The party claiming frustration cannot be responsible for the occurrence of the event affecting the contract.
The burden of proof typically lies with the party invoking the frustration of purpose doctrine. They must meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence.
Focus on identifying the factual underpinnings that led to the frustration and be prepared to analyze the contract’s purpose under exam scenarios.