fault entail only that the party alleging frustration should have control over the event in question? It seems that the word fault may have three different meanings. In the first place, it is clear that if the party seeking to have the contract discharged on the ground of frustration has brought about that event through a breach of his own contractual obligations to the other party, he will not be allowed to set up that breach as a reason for discharge of the contract. In Ocean Tramp Tankers Corpn vV/O Sovfracht, the charterer of a ship

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-147

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

fault entail only that the party alleging frustration should have control over the event in question? It seems that the word fault may have three different meanings. In the first place, it is clear that if the party seeking to have the contract discharged on the ground of frustration has brought about that event through a breach of his own contractual obligations to the other party, he will not be allowed to set up that breach as a reason for discharge of the contract. In Ocean Tramp Tankers Corpn vV/O Sovfracht, the charterer of a ship

ABSTRACT

In Ocean Tramp Tankers Corpn v V/O Sovfracht,77 the charterer of a ship deliberately diverted the vessel into a known war zone, in the vicinity of the Suez Canal at the time of the Suez Crisis. This action was in direct contravention of an express provision of the contract which provided that the ship should not be taken into such an area without the consent of the owner. Subsequently, the ship was caught up in hostilities and was trapped in the Suez Canal. The owners denied that there was a frustrating event and alleged that the charterers’ conduct amounted to a repudiation of the contract:

Ocean Tramp Tankers Corpn v V/O Sovfracht, The Eugenia [1964] 2 QB 226, CA, p 237

Lord Denning MR: The second question is whether the charterparty was frustrated by what took place. The arbitrator has held it was not. The judge has held that it was. Which is right? One thing that is obvious is that the charterers cannot rely on the fact that The Eugenia was trapped in the canal; for that was their own fault. They were in breach of the war clause in entering it. They cannot rely on a self-induced frustration, see Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd. But they seek to rely on the fact that the canal itself was blocked. They assert that even if The Eugenia had never gone into the canal, but had stayed outside (in which case she would not have been in breach of the war clause), nevertheless she would still have had to go round by the Cape. And that, they say, brings about a frustration, for it makes the venture fundamentally different from what they contracted for.