2nd schedule, Lee Chee Wei (SG), Smith v Eric S Bush
relative bargaining power (Jiang Ou v EFG Bank) (Consmat Singapore - commercial entities --> more equal, Kenwell - but not always)
negotiations/protest (OCBC Ltd v The Timekeeper)
whether there was inducement to agree to term
reasonable alternatives (Tjoa Elis - but not always)
knowledge of existence of term
whether reasonable/practical to expect compliance
public policy considerations (Jiang Ou)
(difficulty of task)
[TERMS]: CPFTA Speed Motoring (SG)
Facts: seller told buyer that secondhand vehicle was in "very good condition" and serviced regularly, but this was not so and car had not been serviced in 6 months.
Holding: CPFTA trumps even expressly-stated terms and cannot be opted out of (s13 is extremely broad to ensure this). Despite opting out of extended warranty, CPFTA still applies.
[FRUSTRATION]: What is Frustration?
A contract is frustrated (lawfully discharged) when:
Alliance Concrete v Sato Kogyo
without any default from either party,
a supervening event occurred AFTER formation,
which makes a contractual obligation RADICALLY or FUNDAMENTALLY different from what was agreed upon. (cited from Davis Contractors)
such that it would be UNJUST to hold them to the stipulations --> both discharged
Glahe International Expo v ACS Computer (1999)
It must also have been UNFORESEEABLE and NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR in the contract
[FRUSTRATION]: Paradine v Jane
Old doctrine: ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION
Facts: lessee was unable to use land due to war and hence refused to pay rent.
Holding: rent is still payable. If you create a duty, you have to follow through with it.
Very strict and therefore has been since mitigated by the doctrine of frustration. This is to ensure a fair, just and reasonable result. (J Lauritzen v Wijsmuller - not in caselist)
[FRUSTRATION]: Alliance Concrete Singapore v Sato Kogyo  SGCA
Facts: ACS was the supplier of concrete to the contractor, SK. ACS obtained sand from Indonesia in order to produce concrete. There was a "sand ban" and therefore increased prices for sand. Issue was whether the discharge should be one of frustration or breach.
Holding/Principles: yes, frustration (overruled lower court) upheld the "radical change in obligations" test from Davis Contractors. Also, where a source is EXPRESSLY stated or REASONABLY CONTEMPLATED (though unspecified) by both parties, contract has been FRUSTRATED.
[FRUSTRATION]: Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council
Facts: there was a labour shortage and it took 22 months instead of 8 months to build houses.
Holding: no frustration. For frustration to occur, there must have been a 'radical change in obligation' from what was originally contracted for. A labour shortage was not sufficiently severe.