Agreement To Do Impossible Acts
The construction contract test sometimes referred to as the theory of construction, like the courts, as a matter of the law, the contract in light of the facts when it was created, i.e. its nature and the circumstances surrounding it when it was made. After the undertaking is found, the Tribunal must then determine whether this obligation has changed radically or whether the benefit has been performed in the changing circumstances that have arisen in the future. (a) A agrees with B to magically discover treasures. The agreement is not done. The infringement renders the contract inoperative and fulfils the contractual obligations of the parties. However, section 65 of the Act states that, where an agreement has been nullified, the person who has received a benefit from such an agreement is „obliged“ to reinstate or compensate him by which he was received. For example, X, a singer, contracts with Y, a theater director, to sing two nights a week in the next two months in his theater, and Y agrees to pay their hundred rupees for each night performance. X is voluntarily absent from the theater on the sixth night, and Y revokes the contract. Y must pay X for the five nights she sang. The question is whether this section also applies to contracts cancelled out of frustration.
The frustration of a contract arises without fault or control of a party and, therefore, a party should not be required to compensate in such a case. However, failure to comply with appropriate compensation may also result in losses for the other party. It is therefore to be hoped that the Indian justice system will be enlightened and provide an appropriate means for cases of contractual ftrustrations. (c) a marriage contract with B, already married to C and prohibited by the law to which he is subject to polygamy. A must be compensated B for the loss it suffered as a result of non-compliance with its promise. 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, becomes illegal, becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal.1 The doctrine of frustration arises because an act is impossible. For Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangura – Co-Anr, 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.
Therefore, if the object of the contract is lost, the contract is frustrated. 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 impossibility of section 56 of the law is not limited to something that is not humanly possible, as in the case of Sushila Devi vs. Hari Singh.  The Court of Justice found that if the performance of the contract becomes unenforceable or unnecessary given the purpose and purpose of the parties, the performance of the contract became impossible. But the higher events should remove the very basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it touches the root of the contract. As happened in a real estate rental case which, after the unfortunate division of India and Pakistan, the disputed property in India, went to the side of Pakistan, making the terms of the agreement impossible.