Final answer:
In Hawk's Bay Electric v Thomas Borthwick & Sons Ltd, the concept of frustration in contract law is examined, where an event must be unforeseen to be considered frustrating. If an event is foreseeable, the contract remains in effect despite any difficulties encountered.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legal principle referred to in the question relates to the concept of 'frustration' in contract law. Specifically, an event that leads to the frustration of a contract must be unforeseeable. Hawk's Bay Electric v Thomas Borthwick & Sons Ltd is a case where this concept was examined. According to the doctrine of frustration, a frustrating event must be one that was not anticipated by the parties at the time the contract was made. If the event could have been foreseen, then the contract is not frustrated and the parties are still bound by its terms.
For example, if a company had a contract for the delivery of certain goods and an unprecedented natural disaster prevented the delivery, this could be considered a frustrating event. However, if the possibility of such an event was known to the parties and could have been prepared for, it likely wouldn't be considered frustrating under the law, meaning that the contract would remain in effect.
In summary, the foreseeability of an event plays a crucial role in determining whether a contract has been frustrated. The case in question illustrates the application of this legal principle.