FL · jury_instructions
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Contract & Bus.) 416.52
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE
(Defendant) has raised the defense of frustration of purpose. To establish this defense, (defendant) must prove the following:
1. (Defendant) bargained for (specifics of contract);
2. (Plaintiff) knew that defendant bargained for this (contract term);
3. (Defendant’s) principal purpose was substantially frustrated by (event);
4. The (event) was unforeseeable at the time of the contract;
5. The (event) was not (defendant’s) fault; and
6. The non-occurrence of the (event) was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.
A contract is not invalid and (defendant) is not discharged from the contract merely because the contract is difficult or burdensome to perform.
Provenance
- Source
- floridabar.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-18
- Edition
- 2026-08-18
- Content hash
40aff07d437d5694018fe79da68bd663ba968ae6c6d94f49f4c1a132ecfdee0a
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.