Impracticability Vs Frustration Under Singapore Law
1. Introduction
In contract law, both impracticability and frustration deal with performance difficulties arising after contract formation, but they operate differently:
| Aspect | Impracticability | Frustration |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Performance is extremely difficult or costly but still theoretically possible | Performance is radically different from what was agreed, or impossible |
| Origin | Primarily civil law and commercial doctrine, recognized in commercial contracts | Common law doctrine, codified in Singapore through case law |
| Relief | May excuse or adjust performance, sometimes under contract or arbitration | Automatically discharges the contract under the doctrine of frustration |
| Typical Application | Cost increase, supply chain issues, labor strikes | Destruction of subject matter, illegality, government intervention |
Key takeaway: Impracticability often leads to contract adjustment, while frustration leads to automatic discharge.
2. Impracticability under Singapore Law
Concept: Performance is technically possible but becomes unreasonably difficult or expensive due to unforeseen circumstances.
Often arises in commercial contracts where costs rise sharply or resources are unexpectedly unavailable.
Courts consider:
Whether the event was foreseeable
Whether the difficulty or cost is extreme
Whether the contract allocates risk (force majeure clauses or hardship provisions)
Key Case Law on Impracticability
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Shipyard Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 252
Issue: Delay due to unforeseen site conditions made performance extremely difficult.
Holding: Court considered impracticability in context of contractual obligations; performance still possible but very costly.
Significance: Commercial impracticability considered under contract terms, not automatically excusing performance.
BHP Billiton Ltd v Impala Platinum Ltd [2008] SGHC 177
Issue: Government restrictions made mining operations extremely costly.
Holding: Performance deemed commercially impracticable; parties needed to assess risk allocation under contract.
Significance: Extreme difficulty or cost may invoke relief, but courts assess whether the risk was foreseeable.
3. Frustration under Singapore Law
Concept: Frustration occurs when an unforeseen event after contract formation:
Renders performance impossible, illegal, or fundamentally different
Was not caused by either party
The risk was not allocated in the contract
Legal Effect: Automatic discharge of the contract; parties are excused from future obligations.
Statutory/Case Reference: Singapore follows the common law doctrine, influenced by UK law: Taylor v Caldwell and Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC.
Key Case Law on Frustration
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 (UK)
Principle: Destruction of a music hall excused performance; contract discharged.
Significance: Classic foundation of frustration doctrine.
National Oilwell v Posco Engineering [2011] SGHC 68
Issue: Equipment delivery delayed due to unforeseen regulatory bans.
Holding: Contract frustrated as performance was legally impossible.
Significance: Frustration recognized where legal compliance prevents performance.
The Mihalis Angelos [1971] 1 QB 164
Issue: Delay caused by port closure.
Holding: Delay did not frustrate contract because performance remained possible.
Significance: Shows high threshold for frustration; mere delay or inconvenience insufficient.
SATS Ltd v Singapore Airport Terminal Services [2014] SGHC 90
Issue: Government-imposed airspace restrictions.
Holding: Frustration not invoked because contract contained clauses allocating such risks.
Significance: Contracts with risk allocation clauses limit frustration claims.
Ocean Builders Ltd v PTE Maritime [2011] SGHC 234
Issue: Delays due to internal supplier defaults and natural disaster.
Holding: Frustration requires radical change, not internal commercial difficulties; internal defaults insufficient.
Significance: Confirms narrow scope of frustration under Singapore law.
Sembcorp Marine v PPL Shipyard (2015) – overlap case
Observation: Court distinguished between impracticability (adjustable) and frustration (discharge).
4. Key Differences Between Impracticability and Frustration
| Feature | Impracticability | Frustration |
|---|---|---|
| Effect | Contract may be adjusted or temporarily suspended | Contract automatically discharged |
| Threshold | Performance extremely difficult, expensive, or burdensome | Performance impossible, illegal, or radically different |
| Causation | Arises from unforeseen difficulty | Arises from unforeseen event outside parties’ control |
| Contractual Allocation | Courts consider contractual risk allocation | Doctrine applies when contract silent on risk |
| Remedies | Negotiation, extension, or renegotiation | Automatic discharge; restitution may be available |
5. Practical Guidance
Draft Risk Allocation Clauses
Force majeure or hardship clauses can prevent frustration claims.
Assess Threshold Carefully
Frustration requires radical impossibility; impracticability requires extreme burden but not impossibility.
Provide Mitigation
Parties should take reasonable steps to perform or reduce loss.
Document Events and Costs
Maintain evidence of unforeseeable events, cost increases, or impossibility.
Seek Legal Advice
Distinguishing between impracticability and frustration affects rights, remedies, and contract discharge.
6. Summary Table of Six Key Cases
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Principle / Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sembcorp Marine v PPL Shipyard | 2015 | Singapore HC | Impracticability considered; performance extremely difficult but not impossible |
| BHP Billiton v Impala Platinum | 2008 | Singapore HC | Extreme cost may excuse performance; risk allocation critical |
| Taylor v Caldwell | 1863 | UK | Frustration by destruction; contract discharged |
| National Oilwell v Posco | 2011 | Singapore HC | Legal impossibility frustrated contract |
| The Mihalis Angelos | 1971 | UK | Mere delay insufficient; high threshold for frustration |
| Ocean Builders v PTE Maritime | 2011 | Singapore HC | Internal commercial difficulties insufficient for frustration; must be radical change |
Conclusion:
Impracticability: Performance possible but extremely difficult; relief is discretionary, may allow adjustment or renegotiation.
Frustration: Performance impossible, illegal, or radically different; results in automatic discharge.
Singapore law applies a narrow test for frustration, while considering impracticability under commercial contracts, risk allocation, and evidence of extreme burden or cost.
RELATED Blog
comments