NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW

HYDERABAD
Centre for Management Studies

Project on “Business and Commercial Contracts”

(Robinson v Davison, (1871) LR 6 Exch 269)

by:

(P.SRAVYA)

(37)

Submitted to:

Dr. Shaik Nazim Ahmed Shafi

Instructor: Business and Commercial Contracts
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Facts of the Case

3. Legal Issues

4. Majority Judgment

5. Minority Judgment

6. Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

The case is of Robinson v Davison, (1871) LR 6 Exch 269; which comes under the Impossibility

of performance. The defendant (Davison), who agreed to play a piano at a concert. She fell ill and

was impossible to perform. In Robinson v Davison (1871) a contract was held to be frustrated
when a person who had been engaged to play the piano at a concert on a particular day, was

unable to do so because of illness. There were no charges against the defendant (Davison).

2. FACTS OF THE CASE

1) There was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant's wife, who was an eminent

pianist, that she should play the piano at a concert to be given by the plaintiff on a specified

day.
 2) This case considered the issue of frustration of a contract and whether or not a concert

organiser could recover damages from a woman who was contracted to perform at the concert

but failed to do so due to illness.

3.LEGAL ISSUES

The defendant is too ill to perform and contract held is frustrated and is the

contract still valid ?

Can the defendant be sued for charges and for breach of contract?

Can the Doctrine of frustration can be applied here ?

Can the parties be discharged as the occurrence of certain events beyond control ?
 3. JUDGMENT

The woman cannot be sued as she was held under the frustration of a contract and as per the ,

Doctrine of frustration, says that :

“The common law ‘doctrine of frustration’ allows a contract to be discharged on the occurrence of

certain events beyond the control of the parties which would make the performance of the contract

impossible. As the doctrine is a departure from the traditional view that contractual promises are

absolute, strict legal tests must be met to be successful in applying the doctrine. It requires an event to

occur that is unforeseen and it must significantly alter the relationship between the contracting

parties”
 7. CONCLUSION

The contract is considered as contract of frustration.

8. REFERENCES

 https://www.gibsonsheat.com/Articles/Corporate++Commercial/Frustrated+Contra

cts.html