Frustration of purpose due to change of position: Experiences of the “mixed jurisdictions”

Abstract

The article analyses the problem of change of position and frustration of purpose in “mixed jurisdictions”. Frustration of contractual purpose is the doctrine that is known in English law and derives from the so called “coronation cases”. At the same time frustration of contractual purpose is a particular case of subsequent change of external situation. The author systematically considers the issue in the civil law of Louisiana and Quebec. Louisiana and Quebec are “mixed jurisdictions” that harmoniously combine elements of civil law and common law. But today mentioned legal systems solve problems of change of position and frustration of purpose with the help of traditional institutions of civil law: impossibility, force majeure and the doctrine of cause. In practice it leads to that the issue of the influence of change of circumstances and frustration of contractual purpose on obligations becomes stubborn. The reason of it is the objective unsuitability of mentioned doctrines to the issue. Therefore, we need to mention the experience of Argentina. Argentina is not a “mixed jurisdiction” but its Civil and Commercial Code reformed in 2015 harmoniously combine elements of civil law and common law with the aim to solve practical problems. The Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina provides rules not only about subsequent extraordinary change of position and its consequences but in the single article regulate frustration of contractual purpose. Frustration of contractual purpose in Argentina is closely connected with the doctrine of causa. Therefore in the framework of the doctrine of frustration of contractual purpose both the typical purpose of contract of certain kind (i. e. cause in civil law) and the motive that is unique for each contract have legal sense. Recognizing in the Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina the legal sense of party’s motive for entering into contract Argentina in fact departs from the canons of continental law that doesn’t recognize the legal sense of such motives.