Where a party demonstrates that the non-compliance was caused by an obstacle that is not controlled and that it was not reasonably foreseeable by the party at the time of the agreement, that it could have been avoided or that its effects could have been overcome, it shall be excused by the non-compliance. If the obstacle is temporary, the apology is maintained for a reasonable period of time during which the performance of the contract is compromised. He must be informed of the obstacle and its impact on the performance of the other party, otherwise the damage caused by the non-conservation communication could be held liable. The doctrine of frustration is contained in section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The formation of frustration comes into play when a contract becomes impossible after the conclusion of a contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, this is a special case of performance of the contract. The contract is over and future achievements are excused on both sides if they ruin the adventure to the point of inexcusation or swamp of existence. The doctrine of breach of contract may be justified if the following conditions are met; compensation for losses resulting from the non-performance of an act that is known to be impossible or illegal: if a person has promised to be something he knew or could have known with reasonable care, and which the promising did not know was impossible or illegal, he must compensate this promise for any loss, this promise is made by the non-fulfillance of the promise. If a complete contract is impossible through no fault of both parties, the treaty will be terminated by the doctrine of frustration. If the following conditions are met, the doctrine of frustration can be established: the impossibility provided for in section 56 of the act is not limited to something that is not humanly possible, as in the case of Sushila Devi vs. Hari Singh. [2] The Court stated that when the performance of a contract becomes unenforceable or unnecessary having regard to the object and purpose of the parties, it is to be expected that performance of the contract has become impossible.
But higher events should eliminate the foundations of the treaty and it should be of such a character that it touches the root of the treaty. As happened in a real estate rental case that, after the unfortunate division of India and Pakistan, took the belligerents in India, thus making the terms of the agreement impossible. The lesson of the frustration of the treaty arises from the impossibility of doing an act. But the principle is not limited to physical impossibilities. In the case of Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangurn & Co & Anr3, it was found that “impossible” in section 56 of the law was not used in the sense of physical or literally impossible impossibility. The conduct of an action may not be literally impossible, but it can be unachievable and unnecessary, and if an adverse event or a change in circumstances completely upsets the foundations on which the parties have based their agreement, it can very well be said that the promiser finds it impossible to do the action he has promised. Therefore, if the object of the contract is lost, the contract is frustrated. Courts explain the frustration of a contract due to a subsequent impossibility when they have found that the entire purpose or basis of a contract has been thwarted by the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event or a change in circumstances beyond what the parties had contemplated at the time of the conclusion of the contract. . . .
