Frustration Case Study

1621 Words7 Pages
Introduction:
Unforeseen or unforeseeable events make the performance of contracts impossible. The doctrine of frustration is a device that helps to set aside the contract when any unforeseeable event makes the performance impossible. Section 56 of the Indian contract says “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" .
In Taylor vs Cadwell , it was held that when the contract is not possible and absolute, but subject to an express or implied condition, for example a particular thing shall continue to exist, then in such a case, if the thing ceases to exist, it will be deemed that the performance of the contract is impossible
…show more content…
In Krell vs Henry , the defendant agreed to rent a flat for viewing the coronation procession of King Edward VII. But subsequently the procession was cancelled. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the remaining rent payable as he refused to pay it. The court held that viewing the procession was the foundation of the contract. Due to some change in the circumstances, the purpose of the contract could no longer be achieved. So the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the remaining rent payable to…show more content…
The nature and terms of the contract may help in deciding whether the performance has become impossible or commercially difficult. Just because there is inflation, or a strike or a business loss, the party can’t be excused from performing the contract.

Position in India law and English law:
The Position of this doctrine in Indian and English law is similar expect for a few provisions. Both in Indian and English Law, Impossibility doesn’t mean merely physical impossibility, but it also includes situations where the performance of the contract may not literally be impossible but because of changed circumstances, the performance would not fulfil the object. This was pointed out in Sushila Devi vs Hari Singh .
In Indian law, the doctrine of frustration is not applicable in cases where there is self-induced frustration, whereas in English law it depends on the facts and the intention of the parties.
In)Indian)law,)the)recovery)of)the)prepayment)is)possible in)case)the contract)is)frustrated. But in English Law it was irrecoverable.)After the)enactment of the Law reform(Frustrated Contracts))Act 1943, the recovery)of the)prepayments)was made possible in England.

Judicial

More about Frustration Case Study

Open Document