Frustration of contract

Section 56
Agreement to do impossible act
Afterwards becoming impossible
Lex Non Cogit Impossibilla-law does
not compel the impossibility
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE
•IMPOSSIBILITY AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT
Couturior V Hastie, 1856
•IMPOSSIBILITY ARISING SUBSEQUENT TO THE
CONTRACT
Post contractual or
Supervening impossibility
Subsequent impossibility
 no recognition and application of implied
condition
Paradine v Jane1647
recognition and application of implied condition
or terms
Taylor v caldwell, 1863
Specific grounds for
frustration or cases
covered under frustration
1Destruction of subject
matter
Taylor v Caldwell, 1863
Howell v Coupland, 1876
V.L. Narasu v P.S.V. Iyer,
1953
Non-occurance of Contemplated event or
Non-existance of a state of things necessary
for performance

Krell v Henry 1903

Chandler v Webster
Griffith v Brymer,
Herne Bay Steam Boat co v Hutton1903
Death or incapacity of parties
Robinson v Davison, 1871
Change of law
Noorbux v Kalyan, ….
Government, Administrative or
Legislative intervenion
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur
& co, 1954

Outbreak of war or intervention of war

Fibrosa’s case
cases not covered under supervening
impossibility
•Difficulty of performance
•Comercial impossibility
•Strikes, lock outs and civil disturbances
•Failure of one of several objects
•Impossibility due to the conduct of the third
party
Unjust enrichment and
frustration
In Chandler v
webster.1902
No applicability of unjust
enrichment
Unjust enrichment was
recognized only from
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v
Fairbairn Lawson combe
Barbour Ltd, 1942
 Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram
Bangur & co, 1954
Sushil Devi v hari singh, 1971
Parushotam Das v Batala Municipal
committee, 1949