Scribd
Upload
140 views8 pages

Sec 56: Agreement To Do Impossible Act

The document discusses the legal doctrine of frustration in contracts. It states that an agreement to do something impossible is void. If a contract becomes impossible or unlawful to perform after it was made due to reasons outside the control of the promisor, the contract becomes void. However, if the promisor knew or should have known about the impossibility or unlawfulness, they must compensate the promisee for any losses. It then provides examples of contracts that would be considered void due to frustration and outlines some specific grounds and exceptions for when frustration applies.

Uploaded by

Sunil beniwal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
140 views8 pages

Sec 56: Agreement To Do Impossible Act

The document discusses the legal doctrine of frustration in contracts. It states that an agreement to do something impossible is void. If a contract becomes impossible or unlawful to perform after it was made due to reasons outside the control of the promisor, the contract becomes void. However, if the promisor knew or should have known about the impossibility or unlawfulness, they must compensate the promisee for any losses. It then provides examples of contracts that would be considered void due to frustration and outlines some specific grounds and exceptions for when frustration applies.

Uploaded by

Sunil beniwal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

Sec 56: Agreement to do impossible act

 An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.


 Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful.—A
contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes
impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could
not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes
impossible or unlawful.
 Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be
impossible or unlawful.—Where one person has promised to do
something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might
have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be
impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to
such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through
the non-performance of the promise
Illustrations

 A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void.


 A and B contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the
marriage, A goes mad. The contract becomes void.
 A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being forbidden
by the law to which he is subject to practise polygamy. A must make
compensation to B for the loss caused to her by the non-performance of his
promise."
 A contracts to take in cargo for B at a foreign port. A’s Government
afterwards declares war against the country in which the port is situated.
The contract becomes void when war is declared."
 A contracts to act at a theatre for six months in consideration of a sum
paid in advance by B. On several occasions A is too ill to act. The contract
to act on those occasions becomes void."
Doctrine of Frustration

 Development
 Judicial Non-Interference : Paradine v. Jane
 Implied Conditions : Taylor v. Caldwell

Sanctity of Contract

Foundation of
Contractual Obligation
Frustration / Supervening Impossibility
 Physical
 Krell v. Henry

 Destruction of foundation or root of agreement


 Satyabrata Ghosh v. Magneeram Bangur & Co.

“Commercial Hardship will not amount to frustration”


Specific Grounds of Frustration
 Destruction of Subject-matter
 Taylor v. Caldwell

 Change of circumstances
 Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd v. Union of India

 Non-occurrence of Contemplated Event

 Death or Incapacity of Party


 Robinson v. Davison
 Government, Administrative or Legislative Intervention
 Man Singh v. khazan Singh
 Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick Kerr & co. Ltd
 Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath

 Intervention of War
 Tsakioglou & co. Ltd v. Noblee & Thorl Gmbh

Application to Leases
Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh
Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh
Exceptions or Cases not Amounting to
Impossibility

 It should not be self-induced

 Difficulty or commercial impossible

 Failure of one of the purposes

 Failure by third person

 Strikes, lock-out etc.


Effect of Frustration

You might also like