Contract (136)
''It is the duty of the court to state whether and when frustration has occurred; in other words, to determine the existence of frustration. Frustration occurs whenever the court recognizes that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed.'' Per ADEKEYE, J.S.C (P. 50, paras. A-B) ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CROSS RIVER STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR.(2012) LPELR-9335(SC)
''The courts have recognized certain situations or events as listed below that constitute frustration - a. Subsequent legal changes b. Outbreak of war. c. Destruction of the subject matter of contract. d. Government requisition of the subject matter of the contract. e. Cancellation of an expected event.
''The doctrine of frustration is applicable to all categories of contracts. It is defined as the premature determination of an agreement between parties, lawfully entered into and which is in the course of operation at the time of its premature determination, owing to the occurrence of an intervening event or change of circumstances so fundamental as to be regarded by law both as striking at the root of the agreement and entirely beyond what was contemplated by the parties when they entered into the agreement. N.B.C.I v. Standard (Nig.) Eng. Co. Ltd (2002) 8 NWLR (Ppt.768) Pg.104. Mazin Engineering Limited v Tower Aluminium (Nigeria) Ltd. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.295) Pg. 526.'' Per ADEKEYE, J.S.C (Pp. 49-50, paras. E-A) ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CROSS RIVER STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR.(2012) LPELR-9335(SC)
"the appellant having taken benefit under the contract, i.e. receiving payment from the respondent for the full value of the goods to be supplied and installed, it does not lie in its mouth to seek to avoid its obligations under the contract, voluntarily entered into, on the ground that the contract is void.
"It is unconscionable for a party who having taken benefit under the contract to seek to avoid its obligations under the contract on the ground that the contract is void unless ex facie the contract is illegal where the principle of ex turpi cause non oritur actio will apply.
"????It is settled law that as a general rule, only parties to a contract can maintain an action thereunder. In other words, only parties to a contract can sue and be sued on it and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued thereon, even if the contract is made for his benefit.
"????It is settled law that as a general rule, only parties to a contract can maintain an action thereunder. In other words, only parties to a contract can sue and be sued on it and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued thereon, even if the contract is made for his benefit.
"????It is settled law that as a general rule, only parties to a contract can maintain an action thereunder. In other words, only parties to a contract can sue and be sued on it and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued thereon, even if the contract is made for his benefit.
"????It is settled law that as a general rule, only parties to a contract can maintain an action thereunder. In other words, only parties to a contract can sue and be sued on it and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued thereon, even if the contract is made for his benefit.
"Secondly, it is not dispute that appellant took some benefits of the contracts by receiving full payments from the respondent on account of the goods and services contracted for.
