The old common law had a doctrine of absolute contract under which contractual obligations were binding no matter what might occur (Paradine v Jane, 1647). In order to ease the hardship which this rule caused in cases where the contract could not be properly fulfilled through no fault of either party but due to occurrence of unforeseen events, the doctrine of frustration was developed.

The original theory was that frustration discharged the contract through an implied term to that effect (Taylor v. Caldwell [1863], Tamplin Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. Ltd. [1916]), but the modern view is that the parties' actual intentions are irrelevant and that it is up to the courts to impose a just and reasonable solution (per Lord Wilberforce, National Carriers v Panalpina [1981]).

I totally agree with Bingham LJ that "the object of the doctrine of frustration is to give effect to the demands of...