Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law

Edited by Roger Halson and David Campbell

This Research Handbook comprehensively and authoritatively reviews the contemporary challenges in research regarding remedies in private law. The Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law focuses on the most important issues throughout contract, equity, restitution and tort law as they have arisen in the major common law jurisdictions, touching upon those of other jurisdictions where pertinent.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 13: Remedies for common mistake and frustration

Catharine MacMillan


As a general observation, most of the English law of contract is concerned with remedies rather than principles. This chapter, though, is concerned with two anomalous situations where there is a greater consideration of principles rather than remedies: mistake and frustration. In the case of each of these areas the law struggles to provide a remedy because there is an absence of any clear wrong by either contracting party. This chapter begins with an exploration of the extremely limited nature of remedial relief available for a common mistake. It is argued that the apparent absence of equitable relief in English law for a common mistake, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd, has had an effect on the remedy of rescission. One aspect of this effect is to confuse the grounds upon which rectification should be granted. With regard to frustration the remedial consequences are only moderately better. At common law, the remedial or restitutionary consequences are universally recognised as unsatisfactory. The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 sought to address this unsatisfactory situation. It is argued, though, that the 1943 Act did not address all of the problems presented at common law. The 1943 Act is itself flawed in approaching the remedial consequences attendant upon a frustrating event by reference to the contract itself. These, rather surprising, legislative lacunae and the erroneous approach of the legislation mean that the Act fails adequately to remedy many instances where a contract is discharged through frustration. Parties, it is suggested, are well advised to attempt to provide their own remedial consequences in instances of frustration or mistake.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.