A Tale of Too Many Doctrines: Supervening Impossibility and the Sale of Goods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

Abstract

Contracts for the sale of goods contain three default rules addressing the problem of supervening impossibility: sections 7 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the doctrine of frustration. This article uses a legal historical method to examine why this is the case and what the relationship between these rules is. It contends that the current approach is the accidental result of a series of historical contingencies; and argues that it is unsatisfactory for several reasons. It then offers suggestions as to how the law might be rationalised. On a broader level, the inquiry provides a lens through which the wider history of supervening impossibility in English contract law can be explored. The article argues that our current conceptualisation of the law prior to 1863 is fundamentally flawed, and that this inhibits our understanding of how the earlier law both shaped and confused the development of a more general doctrine of supervening impossibility.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-466
Number of pages34
JournalModern Law Review
Volume88
Issue number3
Early online date13 Oct 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Apr 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). The Modern Law Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Modern Law Review Limited.

Research Groups and Themes

  • Centre for Private and Commercial law
  • Centre for Law and History Research

Keywords

  • Legal History
  • Frustration
  • Risk
  • Sale of Goods
  • Supervening Impossibility
  • English Contract law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Tale of Too Many Doctrines: Supervening Impossibility and the Sale of Goods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this