The Argument of Frustration in Contract Law

The argument of frustration in contract law can be a difficult precedent to establish. Not to be confused with a contractual mistake, frustration occurs when performance is made impossible or is fundamentally changed. Generally, when frustration occurs the party suffering loss is established on whom ever provided services before the frustrating event, or to the party having already paid a deposit or owing money before frustration date. Self-induced frustration on the other hand is considered a breach of contract (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2008).
The facts concerning the Teleflex Inc. v. I.M.P. Group Ltd case summary suggests that there was frustration involved in the contract between the two parties, however, monies should still have been payable to Teleflex Inc because the nature of the frustration was in fact self-induced. It was not anticipated by either party that the contract between I.M.P and the Brazilian government would fail to carry out. However, because both parties made provisions in the contract that suggested the possibility of suspension in the shipping of products and a termination clause was made readily available, it is safe to assume that both parties understood the risks that the contract may not be fulfilled. The acknowledgement and agreed-upon provisions made in the contract in relation to the risks involved, make claiming a failure to fulfill contractual duties on the basis of frustration inadmissible. Furthermore, because I.M.P Group and the Brazilian government never reached consensus and never signed any contracts, it could be deduced that I.M.P practiced poor judgement in securing a contract with Teleflex to receive aircraft products for a project that was still non-existent at the time. I.M.P could have prevented their frustration by either waiting until the agreement with the government was signed, or by including a provision in their agreement with Teleflex demanding work only be commenced upon I.M.P’s signing of the