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

A tenant refused to pay rent after being expelled from leased land by Prince Rupert's hostile army during the Civil War. The court held that contractual obligations to pay rent persist despite interference by enemies, as parties must provide for such contingencies in their contracts.

Facts

The plaintiff (lessor) brought an action in debt against the defendant (lessee) for rent arrears of three years under a lease. The defendant pleaded that Prince Rupert, described as an alien-born enemy to the King and kingdom, had invaded the realm with a hostile army, entered upon the defendant’s possession, expelled him from the property, and held him out of possession from 19 July in the 18th year of Charles I until the Feast of the Annunciation in the 21st year of Charles I. The defendant argued he could not take the profits of the land during this period and therefore should be excused from paying rent. The plaintiff demurred to this plea.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether a tenant is excused from paying rent when he has been dispossessed of the leased premises by an invading hostile army through no fault of his own.

Judgment

The court resolved that the plea was insufficient and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The court identified several deficiencies in the defendant’s plea:

Technical Defects

First, the defendant had not answered to one quarter’s rent. Second, he had not averred that the army were all aliens, which the court would not presume, and if they were not all aliens, he would have his remedy against them.

Substantive Ruling

The court drew a crucial distinction between duties created by law and duties created by contract. Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled from performing it without any default on his part and has no remedy over, the law will excuse him. Examples given included waste where a house is destroyed by tempest or enemies, and cases of escape from prison.

However, when a party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract. The court noted that if a lessee covenants to repair a house, he must repair it even if burnt by lightning or thrown down by enemies.

The rent being a duty created by the parties upon the reservation, and the reservation being a covenant in law upon which an action of covenant could be maintained, it was treated the same as if there had been an actual covenant.

Additional Reasoning

The court further reasoned that as the lessee is entitled to have the advantage of casual profits, so he must run the hazard of casual losses, and not lay the whole burden of them upon his lessor. The court cited authority that even if land be surrounded or gained by the sea, or made barren by wildfire, the lessor shall have his whole rent.

Implications

This case established the fundamental principle of absolute contractual liability in English law. A party who voluntarily enters into a contractual obligation must perform that obligation regardless of supervening events that make performance impossible, unless the contract itself provides otherwise. This principle, often termed the doctrine of absolute contracts, meant that impossibility of performance was not a defence to contractual liability. The case remained authoritative until the development of the doctrine of frustration in the nineteenth century, particularly following Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which created a limited exception to the rule in Paradine v Jane.

Verdict: Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The defendant’s plea of dispossession by enemy forces was held insufficient, and the defendant remained liable to pay the rent arrears.

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