Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826

Facts

  • The case involved a contract for the rental of a music hall for a series of concerts.
  • Before the concerts could take place, the hall was destroyed by fire, through no fault of either party.
  • The claimant, having contracted to use the hall, sued for breach of contract.
  • The court had to consider whether the destruction of the hall excused both parties from their contractual obligations.

Issues

  1. Whether the destruction of the subject matter (the music hall), without fault by either party, discharged the contractual obligations.
  2. Whether a contract should be treated as absolute or subject to implied conditions about the continued existence of a specific thing.
  3. What standard should guide courts in excusing performance due to unforeseen events beyond the parties’ control.

Decision

  • The court held that the destruction of the music hall, without fault of either party, excused both parties from further performance of their contractual obligations.
  • Justice Blackburn introduced the concept of implied conditions: if performance depends on the continued existence of a specific thing, the contract is subject to an implied condition that if the thing perishes, performance is excused.
  • The decision marked a shift away from the rigid doctrine of absolute contracts toward considering the implicit assumptions of contractual performance.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of frustration arises when an unanticipated event, beyond either party’s control, fundamentally alters the nature of contractual performance.
  • Frustration requires that the event makes performance impossible or radically different from what was originally contemplated.
  • A contract is discharged if its main purpose or subject matter no longer exists due to such unforeseen events.
  • The doctrine does not excuse performance if the event was reasonably foreseeable or caused by one of the parties (self-induced frustration).
  • Later case law clarified that mere inconvenience, increased cost, or delay is insufficient; the change must go to the root of the contract.
  • The doctrine has been further refined through cases such as National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd, Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, Krell v Henry, and Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton, focusing on "radical change" and "frustration of purpose".

Conclusion

Taylor v Caldwell established the basis for the doctrine of frustration in English contract law, ruling that parties are excused from contractual obligations when an unforeseen event—such as the destruction of the contract’s subject matter—renders performance impossible or fundamentally different, provided that event was neither foreseeable nor self-induced.

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