Consider the discharge of a contract through frustration. There are several restrictions on the application of frustration, such as the fact that the interfering event must be unexpected and out of the control of either party. In addition, legislation has been passed modifying the common law position of “let the loss lie where it falls”. Consider whether anyone should be allowed to escape his or her contractual obligations on the basis of frustration. Should the application of the principle be broader so that there aren’t so many limitations involved? Does the statutory interference reduce the problem or make it worse? Is there any place for the doctrine of frustration in modern contract law?