This question requires you to have engaged critically with both this chapter and the previous chapter. The view put forward by the author is that common mistake and frustration are closely related: after all, which doctrine applies may depend upon whether a contract was concluded a second before or a second after the relevant occurred. If so, does that mean that the law concerning the two should be closely aligned? And even if you think they rest on different bases, are there reasons why the two doctrines should be applied in similar ways? It would be helpful to consider some of the leading decisions which grapple with this issue; The Great Peace is probably the most prominent example.
End-of-chapter questions: Answer Guidance 24.1
Frustration: contracts discharged for failure of a basic contractual assumption