Question

Mr. X agrees with Mr. Y to discover by magic, a treasure supposed to be buried within certain limits at an unknown spot. Mr. X found the treasure subsequently. Consider the given facts and answer which of the following statement is correct?

• A. Law can regard a promise to do something obviously impossible as significant.
• B. Such promises are based on legal considerations.
• C. Law cannot regard a promise to do something obviously impossible to be of any value.
• D. The agreement is valid and binding.
• A. It leaves the contract to be determined in accordance with the intention of the parties.
• B. It is based on the subsequent impossibility of the agreement which is frustrated by the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event which is within the contemplation by the parties.
• C. It does not necessarily make the contract impossible of performance.
• D. In case of change of circumstances which is so fundamental as to be regarded by law as striking at the root of the contract, court cannot pronounce the contract to be frustrated.
• A. The performance of the act may not be literally impossible, but it may be impracticable from the point of view of the object.
• B. The changed circumstances never make the performance of the contract impossible.
• C. The performance of the act may not be literally impossible, but it may be practicable from the point of view of the object.
• D. The parties are not absolved from the further performance of a contract if they do not promise to perform an impossibility.
• A. Res Ipsa Loquitur
• B. Sub Silento
• C. Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona
• D. Impossibilia Excusat Legem
• A. The contract is not absolute in terms and does not cover the impossibility.
• B. The contract is absolute and covers the impossibility.
• C. It cannot be reasonably foreseen by the parties at the time of formation of contract.
• D. If the object of the contract becomes impracticable.
• A. The Doctrine of Frustration will not be applicable to assist a party that does not want to fulfil its obligations under the contract.
• B. The defence of Doctrine of Frustration is not available to a person who for the reason of impossibility cannot perform the contract.
• C. Few variations from the original contract will be a defence for the parties.
• D. The intervening event must not be entirely impossible.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the facts.
The agreement is based on an act — “discovering by magic” — which is inherently impossible according to natural laws. Even if Mr. X later found the treasure, the promise itself was impossible in its nature at the time it was made.
Step 2: Legal provision.
Under Section 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872, agreements to do an act that is impossible in itself are void. The impossibility can be physical, legal, or of a nature that makes performance infeasible from the outset (initial impossibility).
Step 3: Application to the case.
In this case, “discovering treasure by magic” is an initial impossibility — law does not recognize any legal value in such a promise. The subsequent finding of the treasure is irrelevant to the validity of the original agreement.
Step 4: Elimination of incorrect options.
(A) is wrong because the law does not treat an obviously impossible act as significant.
(B) is wrong because there is no valid legal consideration in an impossible act.
(D) is wrong because the agreement is void ab initio, so it cannot be valid or binding.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the doctrine.
The Doctrine of Frustration under Section 56 deals with situations where a contract becomes impossible to perform due to events beyond the control of the parties. The impossibility can be physical, legal, or practical.
Step 2: Distinguishing between impossibility and frustration.
Frustration does not always mean the act is literally impossible — sometimes it refers to situations where the main purpose of the contract is destroyed, even though physical performance is possible. This is known as commercial impossibility.
Step 3: Why option (C) is correct.
Option (C) captures the essence of frustration — it focuses on the idea that frustration can arise without literal impossibility, where performance loses its meaning or purpose due to an unforeseen event.
Step 4: Elimination of wrong options.
(A) is wrong because Section 56 is a rule of positive law, not based merely on party intention.
(B) is wrong because frustration involves events not contemplated by the parties.
(D) is wrong because courts can pronounce frustration when circumstances fundamentally change.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding “practical impossibility.”
Section 56 interprets “impossible” in a practical sense — performance may be physically possible but useless or impractical in achieving the contract’s main purpose.
Step 2: Linking to the excerpt.
The excerpt emphasizes that impossibility includes impracticability from the object’s perspective — for example, holding an event after the scheduled date might be possible physically, but defeats its purpose.
Step 3: Eliminating wrong answers.
(B) is wrong — changed circumstances can make performance impossible.
(C) contradicts the idea of frustration because it implies practicability.
(D) is irrelevant — the focus here is on the scope of impossibility.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Meaning of the given statement.
The principle means that if an act is impossible to perform, the law will excuse the person from doing it. This aligns with fairness and the doctrine of impossibility under contract and procedural law.
Step 2: Identifying the correct maxim.
Impossibilia Excusat Legem is a Latin maxim meaning “the law excuses the impossible.” It is applied in both contractual obligations and procedural requirements.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
(A) Res Ipsa Loquitur — “the thing speaks for itself,” relates to negligence, not impossibility.
(B) Sub Silento — means “under silence,” used when something is done without explicit mention.
(C) Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona — means “a personal action dies with the person,” relates to survival of causes of action.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding frustration.
Under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, frustration occurs when a contract becomes impossible to perform due to an unforeseen event beyond the control of the parties.
Step 2: When frustration does not apply.
If a contract is absolute and expressly allocates the risk of impossibility (e.g., by a force majeure clause or clear contractual term), then the doctrine of frustration does not apply. The parties are bound by the terms of the contract, even if performance becomes impossible.
Step 3: Application to the options.
- Option (A): If the contract is not absolute and does not cover impossibility, frustration may apply — so this could cause frustration.
- Option (B): If the contract is absolute and covers the impossibility, frustration will not apply — hence correct.
- Option (C): Unforeseeable events can cause frustration.
- Option (D): Impracticability of the object can also lead to frustration. \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 6

Step 1: Principle.
Frustration is a defence available only when performance becomes impossible due to an unforeseen event beyond the control of the party, not due to unwillingness or inconvenience.
Step 2: Significance.
The doctrine cannot be invoked to escape a bad bargain or to avoid obligations merely because performance has become more expensive or less profitable. Courts look for genuine impossibility or radical change in circumstances.
Step 3: Application to options.
- Option (A): Correct — unwillingness alone is not grounds for frustration.
- Option (B): Incorrect — if impossibility is genuine and unforeseen, the doctrine is available.
- Option (C): Incorrect — minor variations are not a defence unless they radically alter the nature of performance.
- Option (D): Incorrect — the event must cause impossibility or defeat the contract’s purpose, so “must not be entirely impossible” is misleading. \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]