Bare Agreement Deutsch
Early common law cases held that the performance of a contract should always take place. Regardless of the hardness, the parties had absolute responsibility for their obligations.  In the nineteenth century, the courts developed a doctrine that treaties that were impossible to comply with were frustrated and ended automatically. In Taylor v. Caldwell, Blackburn J found that when surrey Gardens Music Hall unexpectedly burned down, the owners did not have to pay compensation to the company that had rented them for an extravagant performance, since it was not the fault of either party. One assumption that underlies all treaties (a “condition precedent”) is that they can be fulfilled. Normally, people wouldn`t make the contract to do something they knew was impossible. Beyond the physical impossibility, the frustration could be due to the fact that a treaty becomes illegal, for example when a war breaks out and the government prohibits trade with a country at war, or when the entire purpose of an agreement is destroyed by another event, such as renting space to see a coronation parade cancelled.  However, a contract is not only frustrated because a subsequent event makes it more difficult than expected to perform the agreement, such as for example.
B in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC, where, unfortunately, a contractor had to spend more time and money on work than he would have been paid for due to an unforeseen shortage of labour and inventory. The House of Lords dismissed his right to a contract as frustrated so that he could claim Quantenmeruit.  Since the doctrine of frustration is a question of contractual construction, it can be counterbalanced by so-called “force majeure” clauses.  Similarly, a contract may contain a force majeure clause that would terminate a contract more easily than the construction of the Common Law. In The Super Servant Two, Wijsmuller BV entrusted the rental of an autonomous barge to J. Lauritzen A/S, which another ship wanted to transport from Japan to Rotterdam, but had a provision that the contract would terminate if an event made it difficult in relation to “dangers or dangers and accidents of the sea”. Wijsmuller BV also had the choice to offer either The Superservant One or Two. They chose two and it sank. The Court of Appeal held that the impossibility of honouring the contract was due to Wijsmüller`s own choice and that he was therefore not frustrated, but that the force majeure clause created it. The effect of a frustrated treaty is that both sides will be resolved, in perspective, from the execution of their part of the agreement.
. . .