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

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Modern Law Review
Published
2024-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12930
Primary Topic
Legal and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Chathuni Jayathilaka
Modern Law Review
Legal and Constitutional Studies
article

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

Chathuni Jayathilaka
article en

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.

Modern Law ReviewVol. 88(3)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Legal and Constitutional Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.