The doctrine of frustration depends on a comparison between circumstances as they are or are assumed to be when a contract is made and circumstances as they are when a contract is, or would be, due to be performed. It is trite law that disappointed expectations do not of themselves give rise to frustrated contracts.
Bank Line v Arthur Capel & Co.  A. C. 435 per Lord Sumner at p.452:
I think it is now well settled that the principle of frustration of an adventure assumes that the frustration arises without blame or fault on either side. Reliance cannot be placed on a self-induced frustration.
Lord Sterndale M.R. said in Mertens v Home Freeholds Co.  2 K. B. 526:
So far as I know it has never been held that a man is entitled to take advantage of circumstances as a frustration of the contract if he has brought those circumstances about himself.
In National Fish Co. Ltd. v Ocean Trawlers Ltd.  AC 524 Lord Wright said:
The essence of frustration is that it should not be due to the act or election of the party.