Robinson v Davison (1871) LR 6 Exch 269
Robinson v. Davison (1871) LR 6 Exch 269
1. Background & Importance
This case is a landmark decision in English contract law that deals with the doctrine of impossibility (or frustration of contract), particularly in contracts that depend on the personal performance of one party.
2. Facts of the Case
The defendant, Mrs. Davison, had promised that her daughter, a pianist, would perform at a concert on a particular day, organized by the plaintiff, Mr. Robinson.
A contract was entered into for this performance.
However, on the day of the concert, the pianist (Mrs. Davison’s daughter) fell seriously ill and was medically unable to perform.
As a result, she did not appear for the concert, and Mr. Robinson sued Mrs. Davison for breach of contract and claimed damages.
3. Legal Issue
Whether a contract that requires personal performance is discharged (i.e., automatically terminated) if the performer becomes ill and is unable to perform on the agreed date?
4. Judgment
The Court of Exchequer held in favour of Mrs. Davison (the defendant).
The court ruled that:
The contract was one that depended on the personal performance of the pianist.
Since her illness made it impossible for her to perform, the contract was frustrated.
Therefore, there was no breach of contract and the defendant was not liable for damages.
5. Principle Laid Down
The case laid down the following key principle:
When performance of a contract becomes impossible due to personal incapacity (such as illness), especially in a contract that is dependent on personal skill and must be performed at a fixed time, the contract is discharged (frustrated), and no damages can be claimed.
This reflects the application of the Doctrine of Frustration / Impossibility, which releases parties from their contractual obligations when an unforeseen event renders performance impossible, through no fault of the parties.
6. Significance of the Case
Robinson v. Davison is a classic case on frustration in personal service contracts.
It is especially relevant in cases involving:
Artists, musicians, or athletes who are personally required to perform
Fixed-date or time-specific obligations
It shows that a genuine, unforeseen personal inability (like illness) can legally excuse non-performance without breach.
7. Comparison with Other Cases
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863): Introduced the doctrine of frustration where a music hall was destroyed by fire before a concert, rendering the contract impossible to perform.
Robinson v. Davison extended that principle to personal incapacity, showing that it's not just destruction of subject matter but also personal inability that can frustrate a contract.
8. Summary Table
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Exchequer Court (UK) |
| Year | 1871 |
| Parties | Robinson (plaintiff) v. Davison (defendant) |
| Subject | Performance of a concert by a pianist |
| Cause of Non-Performance | Illness of pianist |
| Legal Principle | Illness making personal performance impossible discharges the contract (frustration) |
| Result | No liability; contract discharged |
9. Conclusion
Robinson v. Davison (1871) is a foundational case in English contract law that established that contracts requiring personal performance are subject to discharge if the performer is incapacitated by illness or similar unforeseen events. It reinforces the idea that contract law is flexible enough to accommodate situations where performance becomes genuinely impossible through no fault of the parties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments