Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 (HL)

Facts

  • Davis Contractors Ltd entered into a contract with Fareham Urban District Council to construct 78 houses at a fixed price, with an estimated completion in eight months.
  • The project encountered unforeseen shortages of labour and materials, resulting in significant delays and increased costs.
  • Completion was extended to 22 months due to these difficulties.
  • The contractors argued the contract was frustrated by the unforeseen delays and rising expenses, seeking extra payment on a quantum meruit basis, asserting the original contract was no longer binding.
  • The local authority maintained that the contract should be performed according to its agreed terms.

Issues

  1. Whether the increased difficulty, delay, and cost due to labour and material shortages constituted frustration of contract.
  2. Whether the contractors were entitled to extra payment beyond the fixed price on the basis that the contract was frustrated.
  3. Whether the doctrine of frustration should be applied using the implied term theory or a construction-based approach to the contract.

Decision

  • The House of Lords rejected the contractors’ claim of frustration, holding that the delays and increased costs did not amount to a fundamental change in the contractual obligation.
  • The contract’s core remained the construction of the houses; the performance, though more onerous, was not radically different from the parties’ original intention.
  • The court confirmed that frustration requires an event to render contractual obligations fundamentally different, not simply more difficult or expensive.
  • The House of Lords moved away from the implied term theory, endorsing a construction-based approach to determining frustration.
  • The claim for additional payment failed, and the original contract remained enforceable.

Legal Principles

  • Frustration requires a radical change in the nature of contractual obligations; mere hardship, delay, or expense is insufficient.
  • The doctrine operates by law, not on hypothetical intentions of the parties.
  • The test for frustration involves an objective analysis of whether the contract is capable of applying to the new circumstances, not what the parties might have agreed.
  • If difficulties or delays were foreseeable, frustration will generally not apply; parties are expected to allocate such risks contractually.
  • The implied term theory is rejected; courts must construe the contract and circumstances to determine frustration.

Conclusion

Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC established that only a fundamental, unforeseen change transforming the nature of contractual obligations amounts to frustration. Increased difficulty or cost does not suffice, and the courts apply an objective, construction-based approach to decide such claims. The principles from this case define the narrow boundaries for applying the doctrine of frustration in English contract law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal