Bristende er det samme som sviktende og man hoerer ofte uttrykket "sviktende forutsetninger". Svikte = to fail, i dette tilfellet synes substantivet aa vaere best etter min mening

Though I have Craig's glossaries and am an admirer of his, I believe 'frustration' is what the Eng. header would be for a subs. failure.

I include failure of non-sev. obligs in case anyone disputes the whole contract being frustrated. Treitel on Eng. Contract law reckons it's individ. non-severable obligs. that crash. If thery were severable, the whole contract wouldn't.

Initial failure: total failure of consideration i.e. sthg given in return or a fundamental cond. precedent.

Kevin's Eng. law glossary: 'A contract is said to be `frustrated' if it becomes impossible to perform, or if circumstances change to the extent that performance would be substantially different from what was anticipated by the parties. Consider the following (imaginary, but typical) case. X offers 50,000 to Y to build an extension on his (X's) house. X pays a deposit of 2,000, with an agreement to pay the balance on completion. After Y has started work, it becomes apparent that the ground around X's house is not stable enough to support an extension, and any attempt to do so would result in the foundations disappearing rapidly into the ground. Y cannot, therefore, perform his part of the contract. X has paid his deposit, but not got anything in return. Y has incurred considerable expense in designing the extension and getting in supplies. So X would like to recover his deposit from Y, Y would like to recover his expenses from X, and both parties would like to be released from any further obligations under the contract'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-08 11:09:11 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Post-grading -> a contract is automatically discharged by frustration in \'AAL\' - Craig also says so in so many (AE) words. No need to terminate it. Reneg. of the contract would be consistent with such recognition of discharge.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2004-05-10 12:52:20 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Re: Norwegian lawyer\'s comments.

With respect, equating mislighold= breach with frustration, impossibility of performance or failure of obligs. is just wrong. Even the under-used UK Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 talks nowhere of a party\'s breach or fault, but the timing and compensation of any \'valuable benefit conferred\' pre-frustration.

\'De andre er egengtlig ikke riktige etter min mening. Det er
klart ikke snakk om noe *mislighold av gitt garanti eller
*mislighold av vilkår inntatt i avtalen. \'

Ref.: Åge Lind N/E Juridisk ordbok

breach of ....;mistaken premise dvs. fremtidige forhold som kan gjøre avtale, osv . ugyldig - ie future event which may or may not render a contract, etc. invalid.

Jeg skal naa ikke si mer enn at ditt valg ikke har noe med bristende forutsetninger aa gjoere. Hvis du ikke likte mitt forslag burde du i stedet ha godtatt svaret "breach of implied warranty"
fra Bjoerdal. Svaret som du godkjente har ikke noe med sviktende bristende forutsetninger aa gjoere. Jeg sier deg dette fordi jeg har studert jus ved Universitetet i Bergen. Men valget er selvsagt ditt, men som oversettere er vi pliktig aa finne det riktige uttrykket, og det har du ikke i og med du valgte det som du valgte.
Ha en fin dag.