Although Krell/Henry`s frustrated licence allowed the use of the premises in question for only two days for a specific purpose, there will be cases where short-term authorizations have been granted for specific purposes, where a tenant could draw parallels. For example, renting a student room for a period of 12 months, based on physical education at a university. If the university is now closed for a period of up to September (especially if the student rents this) then there must certainly be an argument that has been frustrated on the grounds that the purpose of the mutually agreed lease has become impossible. Although no English court has ever ruled (as far as we know) that a lease had been thwarted, the parties have sometimes successfully argued that certain leases have been terminated prospectively. An early example is Baily v De Crespigny (1869) LR 4 QB in which a lessor was not held responsible for the breach of a lease, which neither he nor his rights holders would build on land adjacent to the demosted land after the forced acquisition and construction of the land. 1. The Rental Housing Act 2006 applied to this unit from June 1, 2012 to December 1, 2012. At that time, the unit was considered uninhabitable and the lease was defied under the Frustrated Contracts Act and in accordance with Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA). This is important because, as mentioned above, a tenant must find that what has been frustrated is the common goal of the parties.
It is not enough that one of the parties planned to subject the denied premises to some use, which has now been refused. The parties must have shared such an intention. If it is not possible to find or infer a common purpose, the parties are considered the risk of the event under the contract and are maintained at their fair value (even if it turned out to be wrong). This case is a useful reminder that the doctrine of frustration cannot be invoked lightly and that a lease is not foiled, unless the obligations of the parties under that contract have been fundamentally or radically altered, so that they are physically or commercially impossible to fulfill. It is also difficult to imagine how, in most commercial leases, the parties would have a common purpose that was thwarted by the eruption of COVID-19, especially when the tenant has the right to award or rent. There may be limited scenarios in which this could be argued, for example.B. in the example above to leave a student`s frustration in the short term, if it can be argued that the common purpose of the lease was that the tenant was able to attend physical education sessions. Due to the fact that leases are rarely foiled, there is a lack of authority, but it seems that this provision may form the basis of a right to restitution of a rental deposit. Although the performance of a lease may be temporarily prevented, it is unlikely to be completely prevented under a short lease or lease agreement that is coming to an end.