Also known as: commercial frustration · frustration of commercial purpose · frustration · doctrine of frustration · commercial frustration doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine discharging a party's contractual duties when an unforeseen supervening event substantially frustrates the contract's principal purpose without the party's fault and when the nonoccurrence of the event was a basic assumption of the contract. The doctrine applies even when literal performance remains possible. Temporary frustration suspends duties only for the duration of the event unless resumption would impose materially greater burdens.
Dixon Foods rented a downtown venue from Dover Bank for a one-week product launch event tied to a citywide festival. A sudden storm flooded the streets and closed the venue for four days. Once the venue reopened, Dixon Foods resumed the remaining events without material extra cost. The temporary frustration suspended Dixon Foods' payment duty only during the closure period.
Diamond Manufacturing repudiated its contract to supply equipment for a trade show after learning the star exhibitor might not obtain a visa. The visa was later denied, which would have frustrated the show's central purpose. Diamond Manufacturing's duty to pay damages for the repudiation was discharged because the frustration would have occurred anyway.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Delilah Duran leased retail space from Duffy Construction for a specialty bakery. A fire destroyed the building's electrical system and forced an eight-month closure. Duran sought to avoid further rent payments because the fire defeated the lease's core purpose of operating the bakery at that location. The court applied the doctrine to determine whether the interruption discharged her remaining obligations.
Denise Donovan and Damian Decker formed a partnership to operate a seasonal farm stand under a supply contract. An unexpected regulatory ban on the main crop eliminated the stand's entire revenue source. Donovan claimed the doctrine discharged further performance duties because the ban frustrated the partnership's sole commercial purpose. The court examined whether the event met the doctrine's requirements for discharge.
Dolores Diaz contracted to buy irrigation equipment from Darrell Duncan for a specific farm project. A prolonged drought made the project commercially pointless even though delivery remained possible. Diaz invoked the doctrine to avoid payment, arguing the drought destroyed the contract's shared purpose. The court assessed whether the event qualified as frustration under the applicable standard.
Deborah Dunn booked a public park from Diamond Manufacturing for an outdoor concert series. City officials revoked the permit due to an unforeseen safety ordinance enacted after the booking. Dunn refused further payments, claiming the revocation frustrated the contract's central purpose of holding the concerts. The court evaluated the doctrine's application to the changed regulatory condition.
A party must prove that an unforeseen event substantially frustrated the contract's principal purpose, that the event occurred without the party's fault, and that the nonoccurrence of the event was a basic assumption of the contract. The doctrine applies even when literal performance is still possible.
Supporting sources
Temporary frustration suspends the duty to perform only while the frustrating condition exists. The duty resumes afterward unless performance after the condition ends would be materially more burdensome than originally contemplated.
Supporting sources
A party's duty to pay damages for repudiation is discharged if it later appears that the repudiated duty would have been discharged by frustration before any nonperformance. The subsequent frustration excuses the earlier repudiation.
Supporting sources
No. Mere reduction in profitability from market changes does not constitute frustration because the contract's primary commercial purpose remains achievable. The doctrine requires destruction of the shared principal purpose, not merely an unprofitable deal.
Supporting sources
…were the Shrocks’ son Emanuel, his wife Linda, and two of the Shrocks’ grandchildren. The defendants attested to their frustration with Melvin and Anna’s constant criticism of them and claimed that this is why they attacked them. Daniel Shrock, one of Emanuel’s sons and a participant in the assault, testified that…