Abstract

Unexpected events may obstruct the fulfilment of an agreement's duties, resulting in legally binding vulnerability. The theory of frustration anticipates the only possible consequence of a very unusual occurrence that occurs without permission from the contracting parties. In view of norms of fairness and equity, the theory compensates for a contract's deficiency in terms of supervening events. Given the enormous ramifications of a big contract's essential and restricted nature, it's vital to look at the courts' decision. In contrast to precedent-based law, Indian contract law explicitly recognises the concept of frustration. The aim of this research is to review the law on the theory of impossibility as it applies to India. The paper starts with an introduction to the topic and further goes on to explain the various instances in which this particular law can be invoked. Also the paper covers various facets regarding the topic, explaining in detail the various kinds of impossiblities. In the main body of the article, the difference between the doctrines of frustration and impossiblity is explained under the contract act. In the concluding sections of the article there is a critical analysis accompanied by a personal viewpoint conclusion that gives clarity to the topic at large. Through this paper, I attempt to elaborate the complex doctrines covered under section 56 of the act and provide a brief description that contrasts and compares the different tenets under an agreement. The paper sheds light on the different ways when it’s impossible to perform a pre-agreed contract due to certain impossiblities and describes the many sorts of impossibilities in depth.

Keywords