Question

Frost v.Knight is a leading case on

• A. S.32
• B. S.33
• C. S.34
• D. S.39

Hint:

For breach of contract, remember the two types: 1. Actual Breach: Failure to perform on the due date. 2. Anticipatory Breach: Repudiation of the contract before the due date. The leading cases are \textit{Hochester v. De La Tour} and \textit{Frost v. Knight}. The relevant section in the Indian Contract Act is S. 39. The innocent party has two options: accept the repudiation and sue immediately, or keep the contract alive and wait for the performance date.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The case of \textit{Frost v. Knight} is a landmark English case on the concept of anticipatory breach of contract. An anticipatory breach occurs when one party to a contract repudiates their obligations before the time for performance has arrived. The question is which section of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with this concept. The options provided (S.32-S.35) seem to be from the Evidence Act, which is incorrect. The most relevant section in the Indian Contract Act is Section 39. Let's assume there is a typo in the options.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Frost v. Knight (1872): In this case, the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff upon the death of his father. While his father was still alive, the defendant broke off the engagement. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract immediately, without waiting for the father's death. The court held that the defendant's express repudiation of the contract before the performance was due constituted an actionable breach. The plaintiff was entitled to sue immediately and did not have to wait until the time for performance arrived.
- This principle is embodied in Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, titled "Effect of refusal of party to perform promise wholly." It states: "When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance."
This section allows the innocent party (the promisee) to treat the contract as rescinded and sue for damages immediately upon the anticipatory repudiation by the other party.
The options provided (S.32-S.35) refer to the Evidence Act sections on relevance of statements, which are unrelated to breach of contract. Given the fame of \textit{Frost v. Knight} in relation to anticipatory breach, the question is almost certainly about Section 39 of the Contract Act.