Kerrison  v.  Cole,  8  East,  231.  Bd.,  12  0.  D.  725  ;  48  L.  j.  C.  226.
{t)  Payne  v.   Brecon,   3  H.   &   N.  (y)  Brewster  v.  Eitchin,  supra.
572 ;   27  L.  J.  Ex.  495 ;  Pickering  v.  (z)  Ante,  p.  678,   n.  («)  ;  and  see

Ilfraeombe  By.,  supra.  Chaloner  v.  Bolckow,  L.  R.  3  Ap.  Ca,

(«)  See  ante,  p.  612.  933  ;  47  L.  J.  0.  P.  562,


680  THE  MATTER  OF  CONTRACTS.
Faet  III,  nor  was  there  any  implied  warranty  or  condition  in  the  lease
that  such  use  of  the  premises  should  continue  lawful  («).  A
contract  with  the  promoters  of  a  projected  company  to  pay  all
the  costs  of  obtaining  their  Act,  was  held  not  to  be  affected
by  the  usual  clause  in  the  Act  that  the  company  should  pay
the  costs  of  obtaining  it ;  for  the  effect  of  the  contract  was  to
leave  no  costs  upon  which  the  clause  could  operate  (b) .  Where
an  Act  of  Parliament  repeals  a  prior  covenant  by  rendering
the  performance  illegal,  there  is  no  right  to  compensation  as
for  a  breach,  otherwise  than  may  be  provided  in  the  Act  (c) . —

Foreign  Illegality  supervening  by  the  law  of  a  foreign  country  in
which  the  contract  is  to  be  performed  does  not,  in  general,
excuse  a  breach  of  the  contract ;  the  foreign  law  may  render
it  impossible  in  fact  to  perform  the  contract,  but  affords  no
excuse  for  non-performance,  unless  expressly  or  impliedly
excepted  from  the  contract  (d).
{a)  Newby  v.  Sharpe,  L.  B.  8  C.  D.  670.
39;  47L.  J.  C.  D.  17.  (c)   Per  cur.    Wijtm  t.    Shropshire

[b)  Savin  v.  Soylake  Ry.,  L.  E.  1  TJnionSy.,  supra.
