The Doctrine of Frustration: When a Contract Simply Cannot Be Performed Quiz — 5 Free Questions

📖 Read the passage, then answer the questions below

A contract, once validly formed, is ordinarily binding on both parties regardless of how burdensome performance later becomes. The doctrine of frustration is a narrow, well-recognised exception to this rule: it discharges both parties from a contract when, after the contract is formed, an unforeseen event occurs that makes performance either impossible or so radically different from what was originally undertaken that it would be unjust to hold the parties to their original bargain.

Frustration does not apply merely because a contract becomes more expensive, less profitable, or more inconvenient to perform than either party expected. The event must strike at the very root of the contract, destroying the basis on which the parties agreed to contract in the first place -- the classic examples are the destruction of a specific thing essential to performance, a change in law that makes the agreed performance illegal, or the non-occurrence of an event that both parties treated as the foundation of their bargain, where that non-occurrence was not the fault of either party.

Frustration is unavailable in three recurring situations. First, where the event was actually foreseen and provided for in the contract itself -- for instance, through a force majeure clause allocating the risk of exactly that event -- the parties are bound by what they agreed rather than by the general doctrine, since they already addressed the risk themselves. Second, where the supervening event was caused by the fault, negligence, or deliberate act of the party seeking to rely on frustration, that party cannot use the doctrine to escape a difficulty of its own making. Third, frustration cannot be invoked merely because an alternative, more difficult or more expensive method of performance remains available; a contract is frustrated only where the originally agreed method of performance has become impossible or radically different, not merely harder.

Where a contract is genuinely frustrated, both parties are discharged from further performance from the date of the frustrating event onward, without either party being in breach, and any sums already paid or payable in advance are generally adjusted to prevent one party being unjustly enriched at the other's expense.

Question 1

A landlord leases commercial premises to a tenant for running a restaurant. Midway through the lease, the tenant's business simply becomes unprofitable due to reduced customer footfall, unrelated to any external event affecting the premises itself. The tenant claims frustration and stops paying rent. Is the tenant's claim valid?

Question 2

A caterer contracts to supply food for a specific outdoor wedding venue on a fixed date. Days before the wedding, unseasonal heavy rain makes the specific outdoor venue unusable, though several indoor venues nearby remain available at a higher cost. The couple wishes to treat the contract as frustrated rather than arranging an alternative venue. Is the contract frustrated?

Question 3

A distributor contracts to import a specific consumer product from abroad. Before importation, a new law bans the import of that specific category of product entirely. The supplier abroad had, before the ban, already offered to switch the distributor to an equivalent domestically manufactured product instead, at the distributor's request, but the distributor never made such a request. Is the distributor's contract discharged by frustration?

Question 4

A hall is rented by X from Y specifically for a public concert on a fixed date. Before the concert date, the government bans all public gatherings due to a genuine public health emergency, making the concert illegal to hold. X refuses to pay the remaining rent, and Y sues. Is X liable to pay?

Question 5

A supply contract between M and N contains a specific clause stating that if a natural disaster disrupts the agreed transport route, the delivery deadline will simply be extended rather than the contract being terminated. A natural disaster does in fact disrupt the route. N refuses to accept a delayed delivery, arguing the contract is frustrated and both parties should be discharged. Is N correct?

📚 All Quizzes

Browse every category and see the full list of quizzes on BriskQuiz

→

About The Doctrine of Frustration: When a Contract Simply Cannot Be Performed

CLAT's Legal Reasoning section states a legal principle plainly and then tests whether you can apply it to a series of independent, invented fact scenarios -- no prior knowledge of actual contract law is required, since every answer follows directly from the principle given at the top of this quiz.

This quiz explains the doctrine of frustration -- the narrow exception that discharges both parties from a contract when an unforeseen, fault-free event destroys the very basis of the bargain -- along with the three situations where frustration is unavailable: a foreseen and contractually allocated risk, a supervening event caused by the very party seeking to rely on it, and the continued availability of a merely costlier alternative method of performance.

The twenty questions attached to it move through the doctrine from every angle CLAT actually tests: genuine frustration scenarios, scenarios that look like frustration but fail one of its conditions, an Assertion-Reason question, a multi-situation comparison question, and direct recall of the doctrine itself.

Only five of the twenty questions are shown on any single attempt, so replaying this quiz brings a genuinely different set of scenarios rather than the same five memorised by rote.