An Agreement To Do An Act Impossible In Itself Under Section 56 Is

Commitments that were not known to be impossible or illegal are held responsible for the other party`s compensation for losses resulting from the absence of the undertaking. In accordance with the contract law of the People`s Republic of China, Article 117 and Article 118 contain cases in which a party may invoke a case of force majeure. It is only in the event of unpredictable, unavoidable and impossible-to-overcome events that a company can do so. In Royal Bank v. Netupsky, the court recognized the new question of whether a concept of force majeure could be implicit or legally binding. In this case, the Royal Bank of Canada had negotiated a line of credit without a force majeure clause with a company with significant ties to Iraq. Given the current situation in which COVID-19 has global implications and leads to a continued sharp contraction of the market, it is important to understand the relevance of force majeure clauses and their effects. Impossibility and frustration are used as interchangeable expressions. The principle of frustration is one aspect of the discharge of the contract. In India, the only doctrine that the courts must respect is the doctrine of intervening in impossibility or illegality, as defined in Section 56, and English decisions in this regard may have persuasive value, but are not binding. (para. 49) iii.

The basic basis of a rental agreement is the purchase by the purchaser of the rented premises. Whether the eruption of Covid-19 can be a matter for “or any other irresistible force” in section 108 is an issue that must be resolved by the courts. Although an unforeseen event has occurred at this time and has not been examined by the parties, i.e. the eruption of Covid-19, the event being temporary and temporary, until it is not demonstrated that the fundamental basis of the contract, that is, the possession of the lessor`s premises, is destroyed or that the leased premises have become permanently irremedible. the contract cannot be characterized as frustrated and the tenant is required to pay the rent in the form of the tenancy agreement. In Satyabrata Ghose Vs. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. and anr. AIR 1954 SC 44, Mukherjee J., an individual bank of the Supreme Court illustrated the doctrine of frustration and also treated in detail Section 56 as under: An agreement, an action impossible to do in itself is non-abundant.

The contract then becomes impossible or illegal: a contract that becomes impossible after the conclusion of the contract or which becomes illegal as a result of an event that the promiseor could not prevent becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal.1 i.