The Sanctity of Contracts in English Law - College of Social ...

Impossibility of Performance 49particularly difficult to apply where, as in the presentcase, the possibility of the event relied on as constitutinga frustration of the adventure . . . wasknown to both parties when the contract was made,but the contract entered into was absolute in termsso far as concerned that known possibility." Again,in Tatem v. Gamboa 23 Goddard J. (as he then was)expressed the view that the cases " show in effectthat, although the parties may have had or must bedeemed to have had the matter in contemplation,the doctrine of frustration is not prevented fromapplying."Similarly, where the parties to a contract hadprovided in general terms what was to happen if thefrustrating event did occur, a term could not beimplied if it would conflict or be inconsistent with theparties' express provision. Yet the House of Lordsin Bank Line, Ltd. v. Capel 24 actually decided thatthe doctrine of frustration was not rendered inapplicableby the express terms of a charterparty andthat the contract was discharged notwithstandingthat the parties had provided generally what was tohappen on the occurrence of the contemplated event.In those cases, therefore, the implied term theorywas not easy to apply; and so it must now be takento be the law that the contract is frustrated by theoccurrence of the frustrative event immediately andunderstood, that the window was required to view KingEdward VII's coronation procession. When the coronationwas postponed by reason of the King's illness, the contractwas he!d to be avoided.23 [1939] 1 K.B. 132, 140.'« [1919] A.C. 435.