Frustration v Imprévision, Why Frustration is so ‘Frustrating’: The Lack of Flexibility in the English Doctrine’s Legal Consequence

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic restrictions have placed many contractual parties under great strain to honour their agreements as contracts have become commercially impracticable and excessively onerous. This article explores the legal position in England, France and the Middle East under the doctrine of impossibility, impracticability and unforeseen circumstances. Strongly rooted in contractual autonomy and commercial certainty, this article argues that frustration in English common law is not sufficiently broad because the consequence (automatic discharge) is too rigid and does not allow a renegotiation of obligations. French civil law is more accommodating but only formally adopted imprévision in civil law in 2016, meaning it lacks traction. However, Middle Eastern civil law countries accept the doctrine as an integral part of their law and theory of justice, allowing obligations to be rebalanced in a more flexible manner. The English legal system should consider the advantages of a similar reform.