Frustration of purpose is a legal doctrine that excuses a party from performing a contract when the purpose of the contract is frustrated. This can occur when an unforeseen event makes it impossible or impracticable to perform the contract, or when the purpose of the contract is frustrated by a change in circumstances.

In order for frustration of purpose to be successful, there must be a contract, the purpose of the contract must be frustrated, the frustration must be unforeseen, and the frustration must be caused by an event that is beyond the control of the parties.

The consequences of frustration of purpose are that the contract is discharged, the parties are excused from performing their obligations, and the parties are entitled to damages.

Examples of frustration of purpose include a contract to purchase a house that is destroyed by a fire before the closing date, a contract to provide catering services for a wedding that is canceled due to a pandemic, and a contract to transport goods from one country to another that is frustrated when the border between the two countries is closed due to a war.

Defenses to frustration of purpose include the frustration was foreseeable, the frustration was caused by the party seeking to avoid the contract, and the frustration was caused by a third party.

Frustration of purpose is a subjective doctrine, while impossibility is an objective doctrine. Frustration of purpose is caused by an unforeseen event, while impossibility is caused by an event that is foreseeable. Frustration of purpose excuses the parties from performing their obligations, while impossibility does not.

Frustration of purpose is a common law doctrine, while commercial impracticability is a statutory doctrine. Frustration of purpose is caused by an unforeseen event, while commercial impracticability is caused by a foreseeable event. Frustration of purpose excuses the parties from performing their obligations, while commercial impracticability does not.

When determining whether a contract has been frustrated, courts consider the nature of the contract, the purpose of the contract, the circumstances surrounding the frustration, the foreseeability of the frustration, and the impact of the frustration on the parties.

The remedies that are available for frustration of purpose include rescission, damages, specific performance, and injunction.

Frustration of purpose provides a way for parties to avoid performing contracts that have become impossible or impracticable to perform. It protects the parties from financial hardship and promotes fairness and justice in contract law.

Some of the challenges associated with the doctrine of frustration of purpose include the difficulty in determining whether a contract has been frustrated, the unpredictability of the doctrine, and the difficulty in determining the appropriate remedy for frustration of purpose.

Some of the recent developments in the law of frustration of purpose include courts becoming more willing to find frustration of purpose, courts becoming more willing to award damages for frustration of purpose, and courts becoming more willing to grant specific performance for frustration of purpose.

The doctrine of frustration of purpose is likely to continue to be a part of contract law. It is a well-established doctrine that provides a way for parties to avoid performing contracts that have become impossible or impracticable to perform.

Some of the key cases that have shaped the law of frustration of purpose include Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), Krell v. Henry (1903), and Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour, Ltd. (1943).

There are a number of resources that are available to learn more about frustration of purpose, including law textbooks, law journals, legal databases, and online resources.