正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Frustration （章節）

=== Forseeability ===

* W.J. Tatem Ltd v Gamboa [1939] 1 K.B. 132
** Facts:
*** A ship was chartered for 30 days to evacuate civilians from the Spanish Civil War
*** Seized by the opposing faction and detained for nearly two months.
*** Charterer stopped paying hire after the seizure.
** Held: The contract was frustrated. Foreseeability does not automatically bar frustration.
* Reasoning:
** Frustration applies when the foundation of the contract disappears, making performance radically different.
** Critical question not whether the parties foresaw the event
*** But whether they made a contractual provision for it.
** Seizure was a foreseeable wartime risk,
** Charterparty did not contain terms allocating the consequences of a long-term detention.
** High hire rate reflected general risk, not a specific bargain for this outcome.
** Seizure destroyed the core purpose of charter, fundamentally altering the contractual obligations.
* Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia) [1964] 2 QB 226
** Parties could see Suez was gonna be blocked
*** Couldn’t agree on what to do
*** Contract was silent
** Denning:
*** No frustration of the contract.
*** Charterers could not rely on any self-induced frustration as ground
*** For arguing the contract was frustrated.
*** If they had not tried the Suez canal
**** Would have had to sail around the Cape
**** Would not have rendered the contract radically different.