The doctrine of frustration or impossibility of performance can be discussed here, but in India, the principles and theories associated with it are not applicable. [xix] In satyabrata vs. Mugneeram[xx], the defendant company has put in place an integral part of a plan to develop a large area of land. It entered into a contract with the applicant`s predecessor for the sale of land to the applicant and considered that a small amount of money was serious. It committed to build roads and exits, and the extraction was to be completed shortly after the completion of the tiling roads, with the payment of the balance of the price. Since a significant portion of the plan`s area was used by the government for military purposes in 1941, the company wrote to the defendant that road construction could not be used indefinitely and asked him to consider the agreement as void and to recover it. It was found that, given the nature and contractual conditions, the actual existence of a state of war at the time of the entry into force of the work in the volume of those linked to the regime, which did not set a time limit in the agreement on the construction of roads, etc., and that the order of the requirement in its nature was transitory. , the requirement did not affect the basic basis of the contract and the performance of the contract did not become illegal because of the requirement, so the contract did not become impossible. b) A agrees to pay 1000 rupees of B if the daughter C of B A marries. It was dead at the time of the agreement. The agreement is not done.
Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, relate to the application of contracts relating to an event that takes place or an event that does not take place. A conditional contract is only valid if it is a contract, to do or not to do something. Like what. B a person A agrees to pay B, another person, a sum of 10,000 if B`s house is burned, it is a valid quota contract. On the other hand, the agreement to pay a minimum application fee, there is no event going on, and the consumer has to pay. This is a reference to northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Haryana State and another in which the Court found that section 31 of the Act was not applicable in that case in the absence of an event. A conditional contract failed because the authorization (environmental authorization) of the relevant authority was necessary but was not granted.