Question

In Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961] EWCA Civ 7 the freight boat was not working for 20 weeks. The court decided there was no right of termination because

A breach of warranty only

B major breach of intermedaite term

C the P was not substantially deprived of the benefits of the contract, as the boat still worked for 84 weeks

D None of above

(fictional example) If 5 teachers quit their job at our school, your contract with the school is

A not frustrated, as the contract is not radically different to perform

B frustrated, as the contract is now harder to perform

C none of the above

D frustrated as the contract is now impossible to perform

Answer 1

None of the above: In this case, the judgement made was that the contract couldn't end because in the contract the ship was regarded as seaworthy vessel, but the Hong Kong Fir didn't exercise due diligence to maintain the vessel in a seaworthy and effective state to continue its operations. Thus, the use of innominate term of seaworthiness, causing this to not become a condition.

not frustrated, as the contract is not radically different to perform: If hypothetically 5 teachers leave the school we are studying or working in, that doesn't make us leave the school because out contract with the school have nothing to do with who is leaving or not. Thus, the future performance would still be going.