The new 3rd edition of Frustration and Force Majeure provides a thorough examination of the principles governing the conflict between the sanctity of contract and the discharge of contractual obligations in response to supervening events.

It guides practitioners through a list of supervening events that may be encountered in any commercial transaction, setting out the statutory principles involved, and discussing their interpretation by the courts in a number of common law jurisdictions.

• Discusses in detail the development of the doctrine of frustration within the law of contract
• Examines impossibility, impracticability, prospective frustration and illegality as grounds for discharge from contractual obligations
• Considers the special factors affecting land and leases
• Considers the effects of frustration, including automatic and total discharge, mitigation in respect of discharge, and problems created by one-sided or partial performance
• Discusses contractual provision for supervening events, including force majeure clauses
• Explores recent case law in detail, highlighting developments in judicial thinking

Contract: Cases and Materials, 13th Edition, continues to be the leading casebook for students of contract law in Australia. Significant new cases extracted in Contract: Cases and Materials, 13th Edition include:

• Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505 (reliance and relief in equitable estoppel);
• Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd [2014] HCA 14 (the change of position defence in the law of restitution);
• Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169 (implied terms);
• Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1 (damages and mitigation);
• Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 (the penalty doctrine);
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 (intended audience when assessing whether conduct is misleading);
• Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 486 (statements of opinion);
• Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (unconscionable dealing); and
• Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498 (illegality and restitution).