Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankWakefield
The Coronation Cases... we had that in a Contracts case. A coronation in England didn't happen as scheduled because one of the royals was gravely ill. The courts ruled against the landlords or lettors of the flats along the coronation route refund money to the renters. That's not what happened here. The frustration of purpose doesn't apply.
No one seems concerned about the seller / consignor. Is the auction house going to honor the bid, buy the ball themselves, and pay the consignor what he's due? The auction house shouldn't just unilaterally say ok, we aren't going through with this sale, seller, catch, here's your ball back.
The buyer bought the ball, he should pay for it.
|
With respect, it does apply I think. An event after formation happened (here, Brady unretiring, there, the postponement of the coronation) that completely frustrated the buyer's purpose, without his fault, in agreeing to the contract. Just as a post-formation event frustrated the purpose in the Coronation Cases. I don't see the distinction analytically.
Certainly in the coronation cases the buyer knew or should have known there was a possibility the event would be cancelled, but that did not stop the British court from excusing him from performing.