To prove this is frustration, the seller would have to show:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Frustration occurs where a supervening event renders performance of the contract impossible or so different that it would be unjust to hold the parties to the original bargain.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Doctrine of frustration: a contract is discharged when an unforeseen event, not caused by either party, makes performance impossible or radically different from what was contemplated (Taylor v Caldwell; Davis Contractors). 
- Requirements: the event must be unforeseen, not caused by either party, and must destroy the foundation or purpose of the contract rather than merely making performance more difficult or expensive.
- Distinction from other doctrines: authenticity disputes, inability of one party to pay or perform (without impossibility), or breach are different legal paths (misrepresentation, breach, or remedies), not frustration.

2. Step-by-step reasoning process
Step 1: Identify whether an intervening event occurred after contract formation. Step 2: Ask whether that event made performance impossible or transformed the contract’s substance. Step 3: Confirm the event was not caused by the claimant (seller) and was not provided for in the contract. Step 4: If yes to Steps 2–3, frustration can be established and the contract is discharged.

3. Intermediate logical steps
- If the underlying subject-matter is destroyed (e.g., the specific chattel is gone), performance is impossible.
- If the subject-matter still exists but its nature is fundamentally changed so that the buyer’s and seller’s obligations no longer match the original assumption, that is frustration.
- Mere inconvenience, expense, or inability of one party to complete a purchase is insufficient.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
The chosen option (“the very substance of the contract has been destroyed or so dramatically altered that the purpose of the contract is no longer possible”) precisely states the legal test for frustration: destruction or radical change of the contract’s foundation.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- “The authenticity of the Banksy art.” That concerns a factual dispute or misrepresentation about quality/identity, which could lead to rescission or breach remedies but not automatically frustration.
- “That Justin is unable to complete the purchase as it stands.” A buyer’s inability to perform does not establish frustration unless performance is objectively impossible or the contract’s purpose is destroyed; personal inability or reluctance is insufficient.

6. Conclusion
Therefore, the seller must show that the contract’s substance has been destroyed or radically altered, matching the provided correct answer.

To prove this is frustration, the seller would have to show:单项选择题

类似问题

Is the following statement true or false? In the products of methylation-hydrolysis, every -OH group corresponds to the position of a glycosidic bond in the starting polysaccharide.

Which of the follwoing structures represents amylopectin?

Which of the following is true about an aldopentose?I. It is a monosaccharide.II. It contains a CHO groupIII. It is a disaccharide.IV. It is an oligosaccharide.

For stock A, we have 𝛽 𝑖 = 0.70. Suppose the expected market risk premium next year is 9% and the risk-free rate is 3%. What is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单