知道合同法律的人請進

If a contract is discharged by frustration, then neither parties are liable for the loss.

If a contract is discharged by breach, then the default party is liable for the loss to the other party.

They cannot occur concurrently. Logically they are mutually exclusive. Since a contract can only be discharged once.

The test of frustration is very limited and such doctrine cannot be invoked easily. (Wijsmuller BV).

1) allow one party to escape from injustice result from the change of circumstance.
2) Cannot be lightly be invoked.
3) Bought the contract to the end
4) Not induced by the party invoking the doctrine
5) the party rely on the doctrine must have no fault.

So the doctrine really depends on “how unforeseeable” the event was. Since there is insufficient information, I would not comment on that.
However, for example, if the good is to be delivered by sea. And if there is a 10 days delay. Then it could be argued that the good could be delivered by air in order to make the delivery on time.
Also whether a late delivery amount to beach of contracts is depends on whether the time of delivery is of essence. In other words, late delivery is a breach of condition will allow the other party exercise their right to terminate the contract. It is a question of fact, and there is insufficient fact and would be difficult for me to comment on it.