1.

Counter Frustration:​ At the time of performance of the

contract the rates were not illegal under Indian law. After the
contract was completed the law was passed. According to the laws
under the doctrine of frustration “R is exempt from any future
obligations” but he must pay for the dues that were incurred
before the law was passed. Contracts gave P very wide discretion to
deliver the goods at any station. P had option to deliver goods at
stations other than those lying within the jurisdiction. If the law,
subsequently enacted, does not affect the contracts and the
contracts could be legally performed despite the change in law,
S.56 of ICA is not attracted, and there is, strictly speaking no
frustration of the contracts. Unless the subsequent change in law
rendered the entire contract illegal, the question of frustration
does not arise at all. In short, the control orders did not apply to
contracts made before the law was passed.

2. Counter Authority:​ Defence of Section 175(3)[6] was not

available to R because this point was not raised. Also this section
did not govern contracts made on behalf of the railway
administration and in any case S175(3) rendered the contracts not
void but voidable and were therefore capable of ratification. R
ratified the contracts by accepting the goods tendered by P and
paid for them.(Basically ordhek order niye etar ratification kore
felse)