J Lauritzen v Wijsmuller, [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

SeaQuest Incorporated enters into a written agreement with OceanLift Logistics to transport a specialized drilling platform from Port A to Port B. The contract specifies that OceanLift may use either of its two barges—Barge Apollo or Barge Phoenix—to complete the task. OceanLift assigns Barge Apollo to a different, more profitable commitment with limited vessel coverage. As a result, the company designates Barge Phoenix to carry out SeaQuest’s contract. Before Barge Phoenix can set sail, it accidentally sinks due to a navigational mishap, rendering the agreed performance impossible.


Which of the following statements best reflects the principle of frustration in contract law under these circumstances?

Introduction

The doctrine of frustration in contract law releases both parties from duties when an unexpected event makes performance impossible, unlawful, or fundamentally different from what was agreed. This rule applies only in strict circumstances, requiring the event to be outside either party’s control and not covered by the contract. J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant II) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 shows the limits of frustration, particularly when the event results from a party’s own actions or the contract assigns the risk. This case makes clear that frustration cannot be used to avoid obligations if a party caused the issue or if the contract already accounted for the risk.

The Facts of The Super Servant II

J Lauritzen AS (Lauritzen) agreed with Wijsmuller BV (Wijsmuller) to transport a drilling rig using either Super Servant I or Super Servant II. The contract gave Wijsmuller the right to pick which vessel to use. Wijsmuller assigned Super Servant I to another job and chose Super Servant II for Lauritzen’s rig. Before Super Servant II could perform, it sank. Wijsmuller argued the contract was frustrated.

Actions Causing Frustration: The Main Issue

The Court of Appeal ruled the contract was not frustrated. Lord Justice Bingham noted Wijsmuller had a choice between two vessels. By assigning Super Servant I to another contract, Wijsmuller made Super Servant II’s use necessary. The sinking of Super Servant II, though accidental, resulted from Wijsmuller’s own decisions. This amounted to frustration caused by a party’s actions, barring Wijsmuller from using the doctrine. The court contrasted this with cases where an external, uncontrollable event makes performance impossible.

Risk Assignment in the Contract

While frustration caused by actions was central, the court also considered risk assignment. The contract let Wijsmuller select either vessel, implying they accepted the risk of one becoming unavailable. By agreeing to this term, Lauritzen accepted the possibility that either vessel might not be usable. The loss of Super Servant II, though outside Lauritzen’s control, fell under a risk Wijsmuller had agreed to bear. This further supported the court’s rejection of frustration.

Comparing The Super Servant II with Valid Frustration

The Super Servant II differs from cases where frustration applies. In Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826, a music hall burned down, making performance impossible. The destruction was an unforeseen event outside the parties’ control, frustrating the contract. Unlike Wijsmuller, the parties in Taylor did not contribute to the event or assign the risk in the contract. This shows the difference between true frustration and situations where a party’s actions cause impossibility.

The Significance of The Super Servant II in Contract Law

The Super Servant II remains a key case on frustration. It confirms that parties cannot claim frustration caused by their own actions to avoid obligations. The case also shows how risk assignment in contracts affects frustration claims. If a party accepts a specific risk, events within that risk will not frustrate the contract, even if uncontrollable. This encourages clear drafting to address potential issues. The decision also helps separate true frustration (as in Taylor v Caldwell) from situations where a party’s actions or accepted risks lead to impossibility. Frustration is a narrow rule for unavoidable, unassigned events, not a general excuse for unexpected challenges.

Effects on Contract Drafting and Negotiation

The ruling in The Super Servant II affects how contracts are written and negotiated. Parties must clearly identify and assign risks. Terms like force majeure clauses can address unexpected events and their consequences. Options to pick between performance methods should be drafted with risk assignment in mind. Clear terms reduce disputes over unforeseen events and improve certainty. The case stresses the need for precise drafting to avoid confusion about frustration.

Conclusion

The Super Servant II clarifies frustration caused by actions and risk assignment in contract law. It confirms frustration does not apply when a party’s actions cause impossibility or the contract assigns the risk. The decision aligns with earlier cases like Taylor v Caldwell, showing frustration’s limited scope. For drafting contracts, careful attention to risk assignment is essential to prevent disputes. The Super Servant II remains a foundational case, guiding how courts interpret frustration and manage assigned risks. Its principles continue to influence contract law, offering clarity on frustration’s boundaries and the need for clear terms.

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.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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