Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v Allen (TW) & Sons Ltd [1918] 1 KB 540
CONTRACT, SALE OF GOODS, IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE, OUTBREAK OF WAR, NON-PERFORMANCE, DISCHARGE, DISSOLUTION OF A CONTRACT, FORCE MAJEURE
Facts
The defendants sold to the plaintiffs timber to be imported from Finland through a contract, made in early 1914. The timber was to be delivered in Hull for free by rail in June-July 1914. The contract did not contain any clauses on war or force majeure. The practice before World War I was to load timber on vessels in Finland for direct sea carriage to England, but this practice was not known to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also did not know that the timber merchants in England did not keep Finnish timber in stock. Up to the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the defendants had not delivered any of the timber. After this, it became impossible for the defendants to obtain any Finnish timber due to the chaos with the transport, caused by the war. The defendants contended that the contract was dissolved by the outbreak of the war.
Issues
Had the contract been dissolved by the outbreak of the war?
Decision/Outcome
The decision was in favour of the plaintiffs.
(1) A person expressly contracts absolutely to do a thing not naturally impossible, is not excused from non-performance because of being prevented by vis major, except in certain cases such as that of common carriers and bailees.
(2) Applying Jacobs,Marcus & Co. v. Crédit Lyonnais (1884) 12 QBD 589, the contract had not been dissolved by the outbreak of the war and the defendants were liable in damages for the non-delivery of the timber.
(3) The case was distinguished from Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 because if the rule in Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 had been extended to the present case, that would have created a rule the results of which no one could foresee.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v Allen (TW) & Sons Ltd [1918] 1 KB 540. The legal principles stated remain good law. The general rule that a party who makes an absolute contractual promise is not excused from performance by supervening impossibility (save in limited exceptions) continues to be applied in English contract law, and the doctrine of frustration as developed through Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 and subsequent cases has not displaced this principle. Readers should be aware that the law of frustration has been significantly developed since 1918, most notably by the House of Lords in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696, which refined the test for frustration, and by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, which governs the consequences of frustration and was not in existence at the time of this case. The 1943 Act would now apply to the financial consequences of a frustrated contract and is therefore relevant context when studying this area. The core ratio of Blackburn Bobbin — that mere difficulty or impossibility of performing a particular method of supply unknown to the other contracting party does not frustrate a contract — remains an accurate statement of English law.
