A contract is frustrated only where a supervening event renders performance radically different from what was originally contemplated by the parties.
Contract — Frustration and Illegality
The illegality defence is governed by a trio of policy considerations rather than the reliance test, requiring courts to weigh the purpose of the relevant rule, public policy, and proportionality.
Illegality defence requires sufficient connection between the turpitude and the claim; mere incidental illegality will not bar recovery.
A contract is discharged by frustration where supervening impossibility, not caused by either party, renders performance fundamentally different from that undertaken.
Get a detailed analysis of Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) and how it applies to your situation.
Explain Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tio...