Legal Case Summary
Paradine v Jane [1647] EWHC KB J5
CONTRACT, IMPOSSIBILITY TO ENJOY LAND, LANDLORD AND LESSEE, DUTY CREATED BY OWN CONTRACT, LIABILITY, ACCIDENT, HOUSE DESTROYED
Facts
The plaintiff, Paradine, brought an action against the defendant, Jane, for the rent arrears for the lands that Paradine had leased to Jane. The defendant acknowledge that he owed the money for the rent. However, the reason why he did not pay it was because the land was invaded by the enemy of the King, his cattle was driven away and he was expelled from the land, so effectively, he could not enjoy it.
Issues
Should a lessee who was expelled from his land be liable for rent for a period in which he has been expelled from the land.
Decision/Outcome
(1) Where a party creates a duty or charge upon himself by virtue of a contract, he is bound to perform the duty or pay the charge, notwithstanding any accident. The reason why this is so, is because the party could have inserted a clause in the contract, which prescribes what is to be done with the rent in case of an accident.
(2) In the absence of an express covenant, the lessee is equally liable as the rent is an obligation created upon the reservation.
(3) The lessee in the present case is bound to pay rent, despite the fact that the house may have been burnt by lightning, thrown down by enemies and although he may have been expelled from the land or the land may have been inundated.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Paradine v Jane [1647] EWHC KB J5, a foundational case in English contract law establishing the doctrine of absolute contractual liability. The case remains good law as an historical authority and is still cited in discussions of the development of the doctrine of frustration.
Readers should be aware that the strict rule in Paradine v Jane has been substantially qualified by subsequent legal developments. The doctrine of frustration, which can discharge a contract where a supervening event makes performance impossible or radically different from what was contemplated, was established in Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 and has since been codified in part by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. The 1943 Act governs the consequences of frustration, including the recovery of money paid and expenses incurred. These developments significantly limit the practical scope of the absolute rule stated in Paradine v Jane. The article does not address these later developments, which are essential context for any student studying this case in a modern contract law course.
