ElectronicjournalofcomparatiVeLaw,vol.8.1(march2004),<http://www.ejclorg/> PICC )commentary suggests that it is the case there. 66 It is a flaw of the regulation that it is not clear on this. 67 Yet it is suggested that the regulation is to cover frustration-of-purpose cases as well for two reasons. Firstly, the law would have an enormous lacuna otherwise. Let us consider the facts of one of the famous English coronation cases, Krell v Henry. 69 Henry hired Krell's flat at Pall Mall for the day at which the announced coronation processions would take place and pass along Pall Mall. The processions were cancelled and Krell debtor's obligation and thus d id not make the sole provision of the flat impossible. l demanded payment of the extraord inary lease. In this case, the procession was no part of the Secondly, dealing with frustration of purpose within Article 8: 108 is not possible for the latter Article examines solely the imped iment of the performance with no regard to the consideration. The frustration of purpose in such cases, however, will be claimed more likely by the recipient of the goods in relation to the payment of the price, but his performance,i.e the payment of the rent, is still possible. This approach therefore clarifies the scope of impossibility at the same time: impossibility is relevant if the debtor cannot perform, whereas Article 6: 1 11 deals with a situation where he can perform but does not want to because of a change in the equilibrium. 72 Our proposed extension to frustration-of-purpose situations would not open the flood gates to contract adaptation as this is prevented by the other prerequisites of Article 6: 111(2) Another question is whether the grade of the change is to be decisive or if there is an absolute border. Comparing the grade of the change and the absolute values may make a significant difference as the following instance will show. a sells his car (value EUR 3000) to b for euR 5000. but the car is stolen before it is handed over Two months later the car is found in Lithuania by the police. The costs of having the car transported back amount to eUR 6000. The costs of performance on part of a have increased by EUR 3000, twice as much as anticipated, whereas comparing the absolute values, EUR 6000 costs on A's part and EUR 5000 counter-performance, things look less significant. The construction of Article 6: 111 suggests the latter. This means that the provision is applicable as long as there is a change causing the equilibrium to pass the threshold. In classical terms, it combines the idea of clausula rebus sic stantibus with the notion of laeso enormis. But the result of this is that the provision is more likely to apply if the debtor has made a bad bargain. This conflicts with the policy reason that provisions limiting the duty to perform should not easily been discharged Art 6.2.3 PICC(1994), illustration 5 at 155 Emst n 4.149 Hammer, n 5, 49, believes that the English coronation cases are amongst the best known English court cases in Germany 69 Krell v Henry [1903]2 KB 740(CA) 70 Nevertheless, a minority of German writers try to solve this situation by the way of impossibility: W Flume, Allgemeiner Teil des Buirgerlichen GesetEbuches, Band 2: Das Rechtsgeschaft, 4th edn(1992),$ 263 and 5b; D Medicus, Buirgerliches Recht, 19th edn(2002), 160 rightly pointed out by G H Treitel, Law of Contract, 10th edn(1999), 824 Cf Huber. n 4. 123Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.1 (March 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 11 ‘PICC’) commentary suggests that it is the case there.66 It is a flaw of the regulation that it is not clear on this.67 Yet it is suggested that the regulation is to cover frustration-of-purpose cases as well for two reasons. Firstly, the law would have an enormous lacuna otherwise. Let us consider the facts of one of the famous68 English coronation cases, Krell v Henry. 69 Henry hired Krell’s flat at Pall Mall for the day at which the announced coronation processions would take place and pass along Pall Mall. The processions were cancelled and Krell demanded payment of the extraordinary lease. In this case, the procession was no part of the debtor’s obligation and thus did not make the sole provision of the flat impossible.70 Secondly, dealing with frustration of purpose within Article 8:108 is not possible for the latter Article examines solely the impediment of the performance with no regard to the consideration. The frustration of purpose in such cases, however, will be claimed more likely by the recipient of the goods in relation to the payment of the price,71 but his performance, i.e. the payment of the rent, is still possible. This approach therefore clarifies the scope of impossibility at the same time: impossibility is relevant if the debtor cannot perform, whereas Article 6:111 deals with a situation where he can perform but does not want to because of a change in the equilibrium.72 Our proposed extension to frustration-of-purpose situations would not open the floodgates to contract adaptation as this is prevented by the other prerequisites of Article 6:111 (2). Another question is whether the grade of the change is to be decisive or if there is an absolute border. Comparing the grade of the change and the absolute values may make a significant difference as the following instance will show. A sells his car (value EUR 3000) to B for EUR 5000, but the car is stolen before it is handed over. Two months later the car is found in Lithuania by the police. The costs of having the car transported back amount to EUR 6000. The costs of performance on part of A have increased by EUR 3000, twice as much as anticipated, whereas comparing the absolute values, EUR 6000 costs on A’s part and EUR 5000 counter-performance, things look less significant. The construction of Article 6:111 suggests the latter. This means that the provision is applicable as long as there is a change causing the equilibrium to pass the threshold. In classical terms, it combines the idea of clausula rebus sic stantibus with the notion of laesio enormis. But the result of this is that the provision is more likely to apply if the debtor has made a bad bargain. This conflicts with the policy reason that provisions limiting the duty to perform should not easily been discharged 66 Art 6.2.3 PICC (1994), illustration 5 at 155. 67 Ernst, n 4, 149. 68 Hammer, n 5, 49, believes that the English coronation cases are amongst the best known English court cases in Germany. 69 Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 (CA). 70 Nevertheless, a minority of German writers try to solve this situation by the way of impossibility: W Flume, Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches, Band 2: Das Rechtsgeschäft, 4th edn (1992), § 26 3 and 5b; D Medicus, Bürgerliches Recht, 19th edn (2002), 160. 71 As rightly pointed out by G H Treitel, Law of Contract, 10th edn (1999), 824. 72 Cf Huber, n 4, 123