In July 1914 the appellants contracted with the respondents, a firm of contractors, for the construction of a reservoir which was to take six years to build. The work was started, but in February 1916 the Minister of Munitions ordered it to cease and requisitioned part of the plant. Work was accordingly stopped, but the appellants claimed that the contract subsisted, and this action was brought to determine the question. Held that the interruption was of such a character and duration as fundamentally to change the conditions of the contract, and could not have been in the contemplation of the parties to the contract when it was made. Accordingly the contract had ceased to be operative.
Upheld
Judges:
Lord Finlay LC, Lord Dunedin
Citations:
[1917] UKHL 2, [1918] AC 119, [1917] UKHL 537, 55 SLR 537
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Distington Hematite Iron Co. v Possehl and Co 1916
Rowlatt J said: ‘War does not create any contract.’ . .
Cited – Baily v De Crespigny QBD 1869
A lessor had covenanted that neither he nor his assigns would build on a piece of land adjoining the demised premises. A railway company, under powers derived from a subsequent private Act, compulsorily acquired the land and erected a station on it. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Islwyn Borough Council and Another v Newport Borough Council CA 28-Jun-1993
Three local authorities disputed whether a contract had been made between them, and if so its terms, as to the financial support of a leisure centre.
Held: Later legislation need not frustrate agreement between the parties.
Hirts LJ said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Construction
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.265984