Act of God/ Vis major

Ram linga Nader Vs Narayan Reddiyar

State of Mysore Vs Ram Chander
Saraswati Parabhai Vs Grid corporation of Orissa and others
Nicholas Vs Marsland
Kallu Lal Vs Hem Chandra
Necessity
Salus Populi suprema lix (General Good)
public nuisance
private nuisnce
268 ipc
private nuisance can be proved -3 points
unreasonable interference
injury is caused
sensitive plaintif
case- robinson vs kilbird
mayor of bradford vs pickles
cristie vs davie
hollywood silver folks farm ltd vs ammaid
all cases above above have malintention
projection
nobel vs harrison - injury by highway by branch of tree.
Q. What is the diference between public nuisance and private
nuisance?
standard form of contract
conditions should be intimated before or at the time of the contract
oley vs marlboro co. ltd
theory of fundamental breach
case davis vs collins
inappropriate car for hire
strict interpretation of exemption clause
case lee and sons ltd. vs railway executive
luggage burnt by spark of coal from engine
case akariv vs booth
packing material damaged on second floor because of leakage of water tank
liability undet tort
case lilly white vs john warwick and company ltd
undue conditions

case lilly white vs munu swami

dry cleaner agrees to give fifteen percent of the cost of the cloth damaged or lost
which was undue
q. discuss the doctrine of impossibility of the performance of the cost.
Define and discuss fully doctrine of frustration
Doctrine

of

frustration

ACCORDING to Section 56, an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void

(for example, an agreement to discover treasure by magic). Supervening
impossibility or illegality refers to the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected
event or change of circumstances beyond the contemplation of the parties; such
event or change of circumstances must be so fundamental as to be regarded by
law as striking at the root of contract as a whole or the basis of the contract no
longer
exists.
Subsequent impossibility in the UK is referred to as Doctrine of Frustration. A
contract is deemed to have become impossible of performance and, thus, void
under
the
following
circumstances:
a)
destruction
of
the
subject
matter
of
the
contract;
b) by death or permanent incapacity of the parties (like insanity) where the
contract
is
personal
in
nature;
c)supervening impossibility or illegality, involving actions contrary to law or
public
policy;
d) outbreak of war, war restrictions (avoidance of trading with alien enemy, and
so
on);
e) imposition of government restriction or orders or acquisition by government;
and
f) non-existence or non-occurrence of a particular state of things.
Apart from the above circumstances, impossibility does not discharge a person
from the contract. He who agrees to do an act should do it unless impossibility
arises
in
any
of
the
ways
mentioned
above.
.
FRUSTRATION
MEANING,
SCOPE
AND
APPLICABILITY
Section

56

of

the

Indian

Contract

Act,

1872

stipulates:

"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 nonperformance
of
the
promise."

Frustration may be defined as the occurrence of an intervening event or change

of circumstances so fundamental as to be regarded by the law both striking at
the root of the agreement, and as entirely beyond what was contemplated by the
parties when they entered into the agreement. If an event which could not be
foreseen by both parties supervenes, frustration would apply. Section 56 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not deal with the cases in which an event, the
parties took it for granted will never happen does happen and makes the
performance of the contract impossible. If it be held that this Section is
exhaustive, no relief can be granted to any of the parties on the happening of
such an event, but this would be against the very principle underlying the
Section.(16)
If the inability to perform the contract is due to the fault of one of the parties, he
cannot successfully plead frustration. It is also true that if the parties expressly
contract with reference to the occurrence of the supervening events, frustration
is inapplicable. But there is another type of case outside these rules. The parties
when they made the contract, may have foreseen the supervening event as
probable, but may have made no express provision with respect to it. Here, if
such
event
occurs,
frustration
can
be
pleaded.(17)
LORD RADCLIFF has succinctly summarised the law relating to frustration of
contracts
as
under:
"....frustration occurs whenever the law recognises that without default of either
party, a contractual obligation has become inapplicable of being performed
because the circumstances in which the performance is called for would render it
a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract. '....It
was not this that I promised to do.' There is, however, no uncertainty as to the
materials upon which the Court must proceed. 'The data for decision, on the one
hand, the terms and conditions of the contract, read in the light of the then
circumstances and, on the other hand, the events which have occurred.' In the
nature of thing there is often no need for any elaborate enquiry. The Court must
act upon a general impression of what its rule requires. It is for that reason that
special importance is necessarily attached to the occurrence of an unexpected
event that, as it were, change the face of the things. But even so, it is not
hardship or inconvenience or material loss itself which calls the principle of
frustration
into
play."(18)
LORD

RADCLIFF,

in

the

same

judgment,

further

states:

"There must be as well such a change in the significance of the obligation that
the thing undertaken would, if performed, be a different thing than that
contracted
for."(19)
Frustration is a developing concept; like negligence, its categories are never
closed but are as wide as the categories of human conduct. Its effect is
immediate, automatic, it guillotines a contract without the option of either party
which becomes dissolved. If the parties later purport to act under it they are
really making a new contract. The Court supplying enlightened common sense to
do justice, decides whether the contract is at an end. The doctrine is invented by
the Court in order to supplement the defects of the actual contract. The theory of
the implied condition has never been acted on by the Court as a ground of
decision, but is merely stated as a theoretical explanation.(20)

IMPOSSIBILITY

OF

PERFORMANCE

AMOUNTS

TO

FRUSTRATION

A man can be expected to do what is humanly possible but he cannot be

expected morally or legally to do what is not physically possible. It cannot be
disputed that when a thing is beyond the human control it cannot be expected
from the party which had undertaken to do the work to suffer the consequences
of not proceeding with the contract work and in such a situation both the parties
are
relieved
from
their
contractual
responsibilities.
The word "impossible" in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has not
been used in the sense of physical or literal impossibility. The performance of an
act may not be literally impossible, but it may be impracticable and unless from
the point of view of the object and which the parties had in view; and if an
untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation
upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the
promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do. (21)
If the performance of a contract becomes impracticable or useless having regard
to the object and purpose the parties had in view then it must be held that the
performance of the contract has become impossible. But the supervening event
should take away the basis of the contract and it should be of such a character
that
it
strikes
at
the
root
of
the
contract.(22)
The essential principles on which the doctrine of frustration is based is the
impossibility, or, rather, the impracticability in law or fact of the performance of a
contract brought about by an unforeseen or unforeseeable sweeping change in
the circumstances intervening after the contract was made. In other words, while
the contract was properly entered into in the context of certain circumstances
which existed at the time it fell to be made, the situation becomes so radically
changed subsequently that the very foundation which subsisted underneath the
contract as it were gets shaken, nay, the change of circumstances is so
fundamental that it strikes at the very root of the contract, then the principle of
frustration steps in and the parties are excused from or relieved of the
responsibility of performing the contract which otherwise lay upon them.(23)
Whether the contract has become impossible of performance can be determined
with reference to the terms of the contract and the supervening circumstances. If
the supervening circumstances are such which were within the contemplation of
the parties at the time of the contract or which could reasonably be within their
contemplation, it could take the case out of the purview.(24)
HAPPENING

OF

UNPRECEDENTED

EVENTS

CAUSES

FRUSTRATION

To attract the plea of frustration, it must be shown that the situation has changed
so drastically and so radically that neither party to the contract could have at all
foreseen that because of something happening at another place which may be a
foreign country would result in execution of the contract almost as good as an
impossibility. The impact which the market receives due to an event happening
elsewhere in the guiding factor for determining whether or not frustration has
occurred.
Where after the firm price contract for supply of transformers there was a
subsequent 400% rise in price of transformer oil due to the war, there was
frustration of contract. The abnormal increase in price due to war condition, was

an untoward event or change of circumstances which "totally upset the very

foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain." Therefore, supplier
could be said to be finding itself impossible to supply the transformers which it
promised
to
do.(25)
The parties to an executory contract are often faced, in the course of carrying it
out, with a turn of event which they did not at all anticipate - a wholly abnormal
rise or fall in prices, a sudden depreciation of currency, an unexpected obstacle
to execution, or the like. Yet this does not in itself affect the bargain they have
made. If, on the other hand, a consideration of the terms of the contract, in the
light of the circums
Source:
The Hindu Business Line and www.ficci.com

ans.
sec52 PARA2
doctrine of frustration in england before 1647
case paradyne vs jen
condition after 1647
case taylor vs coltwil
doctrine of frustration in India
sec56
contract to do an impossible act is void
sec56 para2 expalins why it will be void
there are two types of frustation
1. impossibility of the performance of contract
2. failure of ultimate purpose of contract
specific grounds of frustration
1. by change of law
bailey vs d crif agony
2. by destruction of subject matter
case taylor vs coltwel
3. by non occurance of the specific event
case crail vs henry
4. by death or serious illness of the promisor
case robinson vs davidson
5. by intervention of war
case basant vastralaya vs riverstreem india navigation company 1987
6. by change of circumstances
case joseph streamshipline ltd. vs imperial smelting corporation

q. what is quasi contract? explain with the help of illustratio? what do

you mean by unjust enrichment?
ans.
sec 68 - 72

IPC

Law of contracts
by recession of voidable contract sec64
by promisee neglecting or refusing to afford the promisor reasonable facilities for
the performance of his promise
vy operation of law
q. time is the essence of contract. explain this statement? state the
efect of failure to perform at fixed time in which time is essential.
ans. sec 55
q. what do you mean by privity of contract? stranger to a contract
cannot sue . discuss the statement fully. also explain the exceptions.
ans.
meaning of privity of contracts
stranger to a contract cannot sue.
case dutton vs pulley
facts- one man wanted to mary his daughter by seling a tree. the brotner asked
the father to not to cut the tree and he would give the money to his sister later.
later the sisyer sued the brother for not giving the money but the plea was
rejected as tbe sister was not a party to contract
twidal vs atkinson
exceptions
1. trust or charge
case khwaja mohd. khan vs husaini begum
beetel nut box expenses will be born by the memebers who inherit the property
rana uma nath baksh vs jung bahadur
children can exercise the contract
2. family setlement
partition.. marriage etc
case shuku amal vs subramaniyam
sons settle amongst themselves that they would reimburse the mother

3. acknowledgement and estoppel

4. covenants running with the land
case smith and snipes hall farm ltd vs river douglas catchment board
damages
sec 73, 74
sec 73 talks about unliquidated damages and sec 74 talks about liquidated
damages
specific relief act 1963
q. what do you mean by specific performance of contracts? state the
principle on which specific performance is based and what contract can
be specifically enforced?
ans.
meaning of specific performance of contract
principles on whic specific performance is based
1. there must be a valid contract
2. where damages are adequate remedy, no specific performance will not l be
ordered
3. specific performance wil not be ordered of acts which would require continued
supervision of the court.
4. specific performance will not be ordered of contracts for personal work or
service
contracts which can be specifically enforced
sec10 of specific relief act
1. where there exists no standard ascertaining damages
2. where pecuniary compensation is not adequate relief
que. what contracts cannot be specifically enforced?
ans.
following contracts cannot be specifically enforced
sec14
1. where the compensation is an adequate relief sec 14 clause 1a
2. where the contract runs into minute and numerus details sec 14 1b
3. where the performance of the contract depends upon the personal
qualifications of the parties sec 14 clause 1b
4. where a contract in its nature is determinable sec 14 clause 1 subclause 1 eg
sec 7 of partnership act.
5. where the contract involves the performance of a continuous duty which
thecourt cannot supervise sec 14 clause 1 subclause d
6. where the subject matter of the contract does not exist
7. where the terms of the contract are uncertain
8. contracts which are not valid at law sec11clause2
9. where the contract is made for arbitration sec14 clause 2
10. contract lacking mutuality
11. contracts to build or repair
sec2a contract
co.sideration 2e
promise

Specific relief
que. what is the summary and speedy remedy provided by the specific
relief act 1963 for a party dispossessed of immovable property to
recover possession. can its title be determined along with this remedy?
ans.
summary and speedy remedy provided for a party dispossessed of immovable
property to recover the possession.
sec 6
essential elements
1. plaintiff should be dispossessed from immovable property
2. ejectment should be unlawful
3. plaintiff should file a suit within 6 months of his dispossession
4. suit should not be filed against the government.
5. plaintiff should be dispossessed without his consent
can a title be determined?
no the title cannont be determined undwr sec 6
que. what is the mode of recovery of specific movable property under
the specific relief act 1963?
ans.
sec 7
mode of recovery of specific movable property sec 7
according to CPC the dispossesses person can get the possession of his
movable . property will be recovered according to the CPC
essential elements
1. plaintiff must be entitledfor the possession
2. there must be specific movable property
3. recovery of specific movable property must be made by prescribed mode of
cpc
que. what do you mean by declaratory decree? when can court grant
and when cannot grant declarotory decree? what are tje essentials of
declaratory suit?
ans.
sec 34
meaning of declaratory decree - a decree a suspicious right declared by the court
to clear the suspect regarding rigjt of the property.
que. When can a court pass a declaratory decree? when can a court refuse to
pass a declaratory decree.
essentials for a declaratory suit
1. plaintiff should have legal right in the property
2. there should be denial of the right of plaintiff by the defendant
que. what is the prentif relief? what is the object of granting this relief?
explain the various kinds of injuctions. what do you mean by injunction?

ans.
sec36 preventive relief
meaning of preventive relief
injunction is an order which is of two types
1. temporary injunction 37 clause 1
2. permanent injunction 37 clause 2
Hindu Law
adoption 15 21