Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Paradine v. Jane

Paradine sued Jane for back rent of three years, but Jane argued he did not possess the land because it was under the control of Prince Rupert who had invaded. The court ruled that Jane was still liable for rent payments because in their lease agreement, the parties did not include provisions to avoid liability if certain situations prevented possession. The justices reasoned that if the tenant profits from the land's use, they must also bear any losses from issues that may occur during use, such as an invasion preventing possession.

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Paradine v. Jane

Paradine sued Jane for back rent of three years, but Jane argued he did not possess the land because it was under the control of Prince Rupert who had invaded. The court ruled that Jane was still liable for rent payments because in their lease agreement, the parties did not include provisions to avoid liability if certain situations prevented possession. The justices reasoned that if the tenant profits from the land's use, they must also bear any losses from issues that may occur during use, such as an invasion preventing possession.

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Frustration of Purpose

Case: Paradine v. Jane (1647, Eng) [pp. 844-845]

Summary: Paradine sued Jane for three years back rent, and Jane's defense was
that he was not in possession of the land for the time in question (it was under
control of Prince Rupert, a German prince, who had invaded the land). The justices
stated that even though in previous cases they would not allow a lessor to proceed
against a lessee in time of war, Jane was still liable for the rent. The court
held that the parties had committed themselves to the lease, and if they had
wanted to provide for the avoidance of liability in certain situations, they could
have done so in the terms of the contract itself. Furthermore, the court reasoned,
if the lessee was to have the advantage of profiting from the use of the land, he
should bear the losses which may occur from the use of the land as well.

Notes
• Risk shifting K - if land wasn’t invaded, he would gain profit from use of the
land. Also a risk that he wouldn’t get a profit out of the land, and this is just
a risk tenant took when he entered K.
• He could have contracted with a force majour clause
• Diff from Taylor v Caldwell - in Caldwell, landlord only giving up space for the
night, here, landlord giving up the property to tenant completely.
• Where law creates a duty, and then someone can't do it he is excused. But if he
himself creates the duty by contracting, then he is not excused.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy