Paradine Vs Jane

The case which we are going to present today is Paradine V. Jane, delivered in 1647 by England and Wales High Court as a King’s Bench decision. This case is focused on the « theory of frustration ».

The fact are follows: a lessor and a lessee contracted a rental agreement about a land. But, a conflict broke out in the country and in the context of a civil war, foreign soldiers seized the rented land, damage it, and turning it into barren state.

Due to this situation, the lessee decided to stop paying his rent. In respond of this cession of the lessee’s duty, the lessor, which is the owner of the rented land, decided to took an action to force the lessee to pay what he owes initially. So, Paradine sued Jane for failure to pay the lease for three years.

The defendant, as for him, which is the lessee, argued a lot and declared that the land was seized by the enemy because it was a war going on and he was dispossessed of the rented land. That is why, he was not able to take an advantage of casual profits from this land anymore.

The question submitted to the judge was to know if an unexpected or unavoidable event, which occurred after the conclusion of contract and which was not considered by the parties, as a a case of force majeure, could be constitute a cause of a non-execution of the contract ?

In this case, the High Court’s judges, refused to admit that the convenant did not have maintained, even because of an unexpected event which disturbs the good proceedings of the contract. In short, this decision does not allow the « theory of frustration ».

The judges considered that the matter of the defendant’s plea was not sufficient, and so despite of the foreign invasion the lessee have to pay his rent absolutely.

When the law creates a duty or a charge and that a partie is restrained about performing it, unable to remedy the problem, the law can be exempted, excused. For instance, if a house is destroyed by natural disaster like storm, the lessee can be excused for it.

But when a partie, by his own convenant, creates a charge or a duty, there is an obligation for him to perform it correctly, regardless of any unexpected or unavoidable event that could occurs or whether there was frustration, he still had to pay the rent. The rent's payment is the duty of lessee, on which both of the parties agreed. So, the lessee is supposed to perform this duty in good faith, because the Law would not protect him beyond his own will. In addition, because of the lessee took advantage of casual profits from the land, he must run the risk of casual losses. Of course, he must not lay the whole burthen (burden) of these losses upon his lessor.

This decision shows the will of the english courts to protect the contractual justice.

...