Paradine v Jane [1647] EWHC KB J5 (26 March 1647)

A tenant, dispossessed of land by an invading army, was sued for unpaid rent. The court ruled he was still liable, as he was bound by his express contractual promise. This established the historic principle of absolute contractual liability, predating modern frustration.

Facts

The plaintiff, Paradine, brought an action of debt against the defendant, Jane, for arrears of rent due on land that Paradine had leased to Jane for a term of years. In his defence, Jane pleaded that he had been forced off the land and prevented from taking its profits for the duration for which rent was claimed. Specifically, he contended that a foreign enemy, Prince Rupert of Germany, had invaded with a hostile army, expelled him from the property, and kept him out, thereby depriving him of any benefit from the land.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether a tenant is excused from his contractual obligation to pay rent when he is deprived of the enjoyment of the land by an external, supervening event, such as an enemy invasion, which is beyond his control and not the fault of the landlord.

Judgment

The Court of the King’s Bench gave judgment for the plaintiff, Paradine, holding that the defendant, Jane, remained liable for the rent despite being dispossessed of the land. The court’s reasoning drew a crucial distinction between a duty imposed by law and a duty created by a party’s own contract.

Reasoning of the Court

The court articulated that where the law itself imposes a duty or charge, it will excuse performance if a party is disabled without any fault of their own and has no other remedy. The court provided the example of ‘waste’ if a house is destroyed by tempest; the law excuses the tenant in an action of waste. However, the situation is different when the duty arises from the party’s own agreement.

The court stated the core principle of its decision as follows:

when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract. And therefore if the lessee covenant to repair a house, though it be burnt by lightning, or thrown down by enemies, yet he ought to repair it.

The court reasoned that the tenant had voluntarily taken on the obligation to pay rent under the lease. He could have chosen to insert a clause into the contract to provide for such unforeseen circumstances. Having failed to do so, he was bound by the absolute terms of his agreement. Furthermore, the court balanced the risk and reward of the leasehold, noting that just as a tenant would benefit from any unexpected profits from the land, they must also bear the burden of any unexpected losses:

as the lessee is to have the advantage of casual profits, so he must run the hazard of casual losses, and not lay the whole burthen of them upon his lessor

Therefore, even though the defendant was deprived of the profits of the land by an enemy army, his express contractual covenant to pay rent was not discharged.

Implications

The decision in Paradine v Jane established the strict and historic rule of absolute contractual liability. It stood for the principle that where a party makes an express and unconditional promise, they are bound to perform it, and supervening events that make performance impossible do not provide an excuse. This case is a foundational authority in English contract law, representing the starting point from which the modern doctrine of frustration later developed as a significant exception. While the harshness of this absolute rule was later mitigated by cases like Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which introduced the concept of frustration due to impossibility, Paradine v Jane remains a landmark case illustrating the traditional common law insistence on the sanctity and absolute nature of contractual obligations.

Verdict: Judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Source: Paradine v Jane [1647] EWHC KB J5 (26 March 1647)