AGREEMENT TO DO IMPOSSIBLE ACTS

(SECTION 56)
REPORT SUBMITTED TO
Prof. RAMACHANDRA DESU
BUSINESS LAW CIA-1

Submitted By,
Mathew Jose
1627014
MBA A

SECTION 56 AGREEMENT TO DO IMPOSSIBLE ACTS

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. The doctrine of frustration is present in India u/s. 56 of the Indian
Contract Act 1852.
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 non-performance of the promise.
Illustrations
(a) A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void.
(b) A and B contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the marriage, A goes mad.
The contract becomes void.
(c) A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being forbidden by the law to Which
he is subject to Practice polygamy, A must make compensation to B for the loss caused to her by
the non-performance of his promise.
(d) A contracts to take in cargo for B at a foreign port. A's Government afterwards declares war
against the country in which the port is situated. The contract becomes void when war is
declared.
(e) A contracts to act at a theatre for six months in consideration of a sum paid in advance by B.
On several occasions A is too ill to act. The contract to act on those occasions becomes void.

Case in Point
Satyabrata Ghose Vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co.
In the judgment as passed by the Supreme Court in Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangur &
Co. and Another [Dated 16.11.1953, reported as AIR 1954 SC 44 = 1954 SCR 310], (Satyabrata
Ghose case) the Court dealt with the doctrine of frustration of contract. The present case is worth
including in this category of timeless ratio as the matter involves the understanding the scope of
frustration of contract.

The dispute in the present matter pertained to the question as to whether a contract for sale of
land was discharged and came to an end by reason of certain supervening circumstances which
affected the performance of a material part of it. The court while adjudicating the above issue
was also sought to distinguish the law relating to frustration of contract as applicable in England
and in India.
The first issue was taken up to interpret or rather understand the true scope and effect of Section
56 of the Indian Contract Act and to what extent, if any it incorporates the English rule of
frustration of contracts. Section 56 relates to performance of contracts dealing with a
circumstance under which performance of a contract is excused or dispensed with on the ground
of the contract being-void. The first part of Section 56 lays down the law in the same way as in
England, whereas the second part enunciates the law relating to discharge of contract by reason
of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done.
The Court observed that the doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of
discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be
done and hence comes within the purview of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. In regard to
application of English legal position, it was clarified that in deciding cases in India the only
doctrine that is to be seen is of supervening impossibility or illegality as laid down in section 56
of the Contract Act taking the word "Impossible" in its practical and not literal sense. Section 56
lays down a rule of positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the
intention of the parties.
Although in English law these cases are treated as cases of frustration, in India they would be
dealt with under section 32 of the Indian Contract Act which deals with contingent contracts or
similar other provisions contained in the Act. The relief is given by the court on the ground of
subsequent impossibility when it finds that the whole purpose or basis of a contract was
frustrated by the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event or change of circumstances
which was beyond what was contemplated by the parties at the time when they entered into the
agreement.