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 Silentio
• C. Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona
• D. Impotentia 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

The scenario involves a promise to find a treasure through magic, which is essentially an impossible task. In the context of Indian Contract Law, this falls under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 56 states that a contract to do an act which becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is made becomes void when it becomes impossible or unlawful. The law considers a promise to achieve something that is inherently impossible, such as finding treasure by magic, to be of no value. Thus, the agreement is rendered void from the outset because it involves an impossible task. Therefore, the correct statement is: Law cannot regard a promise to do something obviously impossible to be of any value.

Answer 2

The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract is a legal concept that applies to situations where, after the formation of a contract, an unforeseen event occurs that renders the contractual obligations impossible to perform or transforms the nature of the obligations so drastically that they become essentially different from what was initially agreed upon. 

The concept is embedded in Indian law under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which addresses agreements that become impossible to perform due to unforeseen events. The section states that if a contract to perform an act becomes impossible or unlawful, it is rendered void. The impossibility must be practical rather than literal, which means that the performance of the obligation has become excessively onerous or fundamentally different from what was contemplated at the time of the contract's formation.

This concept, however, does not automatically release the parties from their contractual obligations unless the performance is actually rendered impossible. In the context of the given options, the correct answer is that the Doctrine of Frustration "does not necessarily make the contract impossible of performance". Instead, it addresses situations where performance has become radically different or impracticable due to unexpected changes in circumstances. Thus, option 3 is the correct choice.

Answer 3

Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically Section 56, a contract becomes void when an act contracted for becomes impossible or unlawful due to events beyond the promisor's control. This is known as supervening impossibility or illegality. The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark case, clarified that the term ‘impossible’ should be interpreted in a practical manner rather than literally. This implies that even if an act is not literally impossible, it could still be considered impracticable based on the context or object of the contract. Therefore, regarding the nature of impossibility in contracts as per the given excerpt, the correct statement is: "The performance of the act may not be literally impossible, but it may be impracticable from the point of view of the object."

Answer 4

To determine the correct legal maxim that expresses the meaning of the statement "Law does not compel a person to do which he cannot possibly perform," we should analyze the options provided. The meaning aligns with the maxim "Impotentia Excusat Legem," which translates to "impossibility excuses the law." This principle suggests that a person is not expected to perform an act that is impossible. In the context of Indian contract law, particularly Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract to do an act that becomes impossible is rendered void. The parties are excused from performance if an unforeseen event makes the promised act impossible. The other options, such as "Res Ipsa Loquitur," "Sub Silentio," and "Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona," do not capture this concept as effectively. Hence, the correct maxim is "Impotentia Excusat Legem," reflecting the principle that the law does not compel the performance of impossibilities.

Answer 5

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly Section 56, addresses the concept of frustration of contract, which applies when an unforeseen event occurs that makes performance impossible or unlawful. However, Section 32 allows parties to contractually agree on what would happen if such an event occurs. If a contract explicitly addresses the impossibility and provides a mechanism for that scenario, it doesn't get frustrated. Hence, an agreement that is absolute and covers impossibility won't be frustrated by a supervening event. Therefore, the correct answer is:

The contract is absolute and covers the impossibility.

Supervening Impossibility Scenarios	Effect on Contract
Not specified in contract	Frustrated under Section 56
Explicitly covered in contract	Not frustrated, resolved under Section 32

Answer 6

In legal studies, specifically regarding the frustration of contract, the doctrine of frustration implies that when a contract's performance becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances, the obligations within that contract may be discharged. This is especially relevant under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. According to this section, if an act becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is made, the agreement becomes void.

The given options relate to this doctrine:

• The Doctrine of Frustration will not be applicable to assist a party that does not want to fulfil its obligations under the contract: This option is correct. The doctrine is intended to address genuine impossibility, not to release a party from obligations simply because they no longer wish to perform them.
• The defense of Doctrine of Frustration is not available to a person who, for the reason of impossibility, cannot perform the contract: This is incorrect. The essence of the doctrine of frustration is to relieve parties from performance when it becomes impossible.
• Few variations from the original contract will be a defense for the parties: This is incorrect. Minor variations do not constitute frustration; the event must make the fulfillment of the contract truly impossible.
• The intervening event must not be entirely impossible: This is incorrect. For the doctrine of frustration to apply, the intervening event must indeed make the contract's performance impossible.

In conclusion, the doctrine of frustration does not serve parties unwilling to perform their contractual duties but those who genuinely cannot due to unforeseeable circumstances.