## Facts

- Paradine (plaintiff) sued Jane (defendant) for unpaid rent on leased land.
- Jane admitted owing rent but argued that he was forcibly evicted from the land by Prince Rupert’s army during the English Civil War.
- Jane claimed he could not use the land, and his cattle were driven away; he asserted that his obligation should be excused since the situation was not his fault.
- The dispute centered on whether Jane remained liable for rent despite being prevented from using the property due to unforeseeable external events.

## Issues

1. Whether liability for rent under a lease is excused when the lessee is forcibly evicted through no fault of their own.
2. Whether unforeseen external events can absolve a party from contractual obligations in the absence of explicit contract terms.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench held Jane liable for the rent, despite eviction and inability to use the land.
- The court reasoned that contractual obligations are absolute unless the contract contains explicit provisions excusing performance in specific scenarios.
- The absence of such clauses meant Jane remained liable, regardless of intervening events.

## Legal Principles

- Parties to a contract are bound to perform their obligations absolutely unless the contract explicitly provides otherwise.
- Liability under contract is not excused by impossibility resulting from unforeseen external circumstances, unless the contract expressly anticipates such events.
- At the time, the defense of ‘impossibility’ was extremely limited unless incorporated as a term within the contract.
- The doctrine of frustration, not recognized in this case, developed later to address such supervening events, notably in Taylor v Caldwell (1863) and subsequent "Coronation Cases" (Krell v Henry; Herne Bay Steam Boat Company v Hutton).

## Conclusion

The court in Paradine v Jane established a strict principle that contractual duties are absolute unless expressly qualified, ruling that liability persists despite intervening events. This rigidity was later mitigated by the evolution of the doctrine of frustration in English contract law.

Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26