Metr op o lita n W ater B oa rd

Vs. Dick , K er r an d C o. L td .
House of Lords, London, United
Kingdom

In July 1914 the appellants contracted with the respondents, a firm of

contractors, for the construction of a reservoir which was to take six years to
build.
The work was started, but in February 1916 the Minister of Munitions ordered it to
cease and requisitioned part of the plant. Work was accordingly stopped, but the
appellants claimed that the contract subsisted, and this action was brought to
determine the question.
Condition 32 of the contract provided for time extension in the event of delay,
‘whatsoever and howsoever occasioned’.

OLVED
ISSUES INV

Whether a contract for the ARGUMENT

construction of reservoirs and

S

waterworks between the

OF APPELL
AN
Metropolitan Water Board, the
T

r That the illegality of w

appellants, and Messrs. Dick, Ker orking on
& Co., Limited, the respondents, the reservoir is only te
mporary,
can be treated by the respondents and will someday be w
ithdrawn.
as at an end, in consequence of an Condition 32 of the
contract
s
Order of the Minister of Munition provided for time exte
nsion in
that work under the contract the event of delay, ‘wha
tsoever
should cease? and howsoever occasioned’,
therefore, the contract
doesn’t
cease to be binding.

ARGUMEN
T

OF DEFEN
DAN T

That notice from the Ministry

of
Munitions, dated February 21,
1916,
was given in exercise of the po
wers
conferred by the Defence of DECREE
the
such
Realm Acts and the Regulat
ions Held that the interruption was of
and Orders made thereunder, character and duration as
and a
that the notice required to change the
the fundamentally
ld
contractors to cease work on
their conditions of the contract, and cou
n of
contract and that they ceased
work not have been in the contemplatio
en it
accordingly. the parties to the contract wh
tract
was made. Accordingly, the con
.The
had ceased to be operative
was terminated by
contract
frustration.

by Mahak Agarwal
Reg no. 20BBL022