Agreement To Do Impossible Act Is

Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement to accomplish an impossible action is not has been concluded. An agreement to do an impossible act in itself is a null and void. Contract to do to act subsequently impossible or illegal: A contract to make an act that is done after the contract becomes impossible or, because of an event that the promisor could not prevent, illegal, becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal.1 a) agreed with B to discover the treasure of magic. The agreement is not done. If a party proves that the non-performance was caused by an obstacle beyond its control and that it would not reasonably have been provided for by the party at the time of the agreement, and that it could not have avoided or overcome its effects, it is excused by the non-performance. If the obstacle is temporary, the excuse is maintained for an appropriate period during which the performance of the contract is compromised. It must be informed of the obstruction and its effects on its ability to present to the other party, otherwise the damage caused by the non-receipt disclosure could be made liable. If a complete contract becomes impossible on either side without fault, the contract is excellent fine by the doctrine of frustration. When the following conditions are met, the teaching of frustration can be established: Section 56 establishes a positive rule in terms of frustration and does not leave the issue of frustration to the court. It is not possible to reach agreement on a change in circumstances and it has also been found that when a review of the terms of the contract, given the circumstances in which it was carried out, shows that the parties have never agreed to be bound in a fundamentally different situation that occurs unexpectedly, that the contract will no longer be bound at that time- , but does not apply in the event of actual construction in this situation; Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v U.P. Forest Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 205.

The courts explain the frustration of the contract on the basis of the subsequent impossibility when they find that the entire purpose or basis of the agreement was foiled by a burglary or incident or a change in circumstances that goes beyond what the parties attempted to do at the time of the agreement. Changing circumstances make it impossible to enforce this treaty and, as they have not promised to exercise their power, they are exempt from further enforcement. Compensation for losses resulting from an act known as impossible or illegal: if a person promised to be something he knew or knew with due diligence and whose promise gave did not know that it was impossible or illegal, that promise must have compensated such a commitment for any loss that such a promise carries through non-compliance with the undertaking. Frustration means a number of circumstances that occur after the contract is concluded, the arrival of which is not due to the fault of a party and which physically and economically prevents one or more parties from executing the contract. The theory of frustration is born because an action is impossible. For Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangura – Co-Anr[1], the “impossible” section 56 of the law was not used. It may be literally impossible to accomplish an action, but it may be unenforceable and unnecessary, and if an adverse event or change in circumstances completely disrupts the foundations on which the parties negotiated, it is very likely that the promising party will find it impossible to do the act it promised.