best position to take reasonable steps to avoid the risk of loss created by the contract. In this regard, it is relevant to consider whether a contract may be frustrated if the risk of loss is foreseeable; whether either of the parties has been at fault, especially where the frustrating event is self-induced and whether there are reasonable steps which could have been taken by one of the parties which might have averted the risk of loss. Foreseeable risks : If a particular risk of loss has been foreseen, it may be reasonable to assume that the parties will have provided for that eventuality in their contract. Taken to its logical conclusion, this should mean that the risk of loss should lie where it falls. Similarly, even if the event has not been provided for in the contract but ought to have been foreseen by the parties, it will normally be the case

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-145

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

ABSTRACT

If a particular risk of loss has been foreseen, it may be reasonable to assume that the parties will have provided for that eventuality in their contract. Taken to its logical conclusion, this should mean that the risk of loss should lie where it falls.69 Similarly, even if the event has not been provided for in the contract but ought to have been foreseen by the parties, it will normally be the case that the risk should lie where it falls.70 However, there appear to be cases in which the fact of foreseeability has not prevented the use of the doctrine of frustration, since the test of foresight appears to be very strict.