«Section 56. Agreement impossible to act.- An agreement, the impossibility of doing an act in itself is a nullity. (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. If a complete contract becomes impossible on either side without fault, the contract is excellent fine by the doctrine of frustration. If the following conditions are met, the lesson of frustration can be established: compensation for losses resulting from an act known as impossible or illegal: if a person promised to be something he knew or could know carefully and whose promise holder did not know that it was impossible or illegal, that promise must be such a promise for every loss that promise has suffered as a result of non-compliance with the promise. 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. (a) A agrees with B to magically discover treasures. The agreement is not done. The theory of frustration is born because an action 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.
«The first paragraph of the section defines the law in the same way as in England. He speaks of something that is inherently impossible and no one can obviously be invited to do such an act. Paragraph 2 refers to the contract enforcement law because of the impossibility or illegality of the agreed act. The wording of this paragraph is fairly general and, although the accompanying illustrations are not at all happy, they cannot deviate from the general terms used in the regulation. What is clear is that the word «impossible» was not used here in the sense of a physical or literal impossibility. The conduct of an action may not be literally impossible, but it may be unenforceable and unnecessary from the point of view of the purpose and purpose that the parties had in mind; And if an unpleasant event or a change in circumstances completely upsets the basis on which the parties based their negotiations, it can well be said that the Promisor found it impossible to do the act it had promised.