Claude Neon Ltd v Hardie [1970] Qd R 93

You are here:
< Back
Facts
  • A contract is entered into to display an illuminated sign
  • Part of the contract was a clause that stated rent was still payable even if the building was “extinguished or deferred”
  • The building where it was displayed was demolished.
  • Hardie argued the contract had been frustrated and they should not have to pay the remaining rent.
Issue
  • Was the contract frustrated?
Held
  • Due to the clause, no frustration occurred as this had been accounted for in the contract
  • So they had to pay the rent
Relevance
  • This case demonstrates that where a frustrating event occurs, but has been provided for in the contract, it should be dealt with according to the contract.

-- Download Claude Neon Ltd v Hardie [1970] Qd R 93 as PDF --


FavoriteLoadingSave this case