THEORIES OF FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT

LAW OF CONTRACT

The final project submitted on complete fulfillment of the course, human resource management
during the academic session 2018-2019, Semester-2.

Submitted by

Name: Madhavi Bohra

Roll No.:2023

Class: BBA LL.B. (H)

Submitted to

Mrs. Sushmita Singh

Faculty of law of contract

February, 2018

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR,

PATNA- 800001.

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty Mrs. Sushmita Singh whose assignment of such
a relevant topic made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater interest
and enthusiasm and moreover he guided me throughout the project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without
whom I couldn’t have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands
who helped me out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU!
NAME-Madhavi Bohra
ROLL NO- 2023
2nd Semester (bba.llb)

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in this project report entitled “theories of frustration of
contract” submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an outcome of my work
carried out under the supervision of Mrs. Sushmita Singh. I have duly acknowledged all the
sources from which the ideas and extracts have been taken. To the best of my understanding,
the project is free from any plagiarism issue.
Madhavi Bohra
DATE- 08-02-2019

3
Table of Contents
1 Introduction- ................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Historical overview- ........................................................................................................................ 7
3 Theories of frustration of contract- ................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Theory of Implied Term .......................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Just and Reasonable Solution ................................................................................................. 8
4 Comparative Study of Doctrine of Frustration.............................................................................. 10
4.1 Contract frustration in English law ....................................................................................... 10
4.2 Doctrine of frustration under Indian Contract Act ............................................................... 12
 Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates: ....................................................... 12
 IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE AMOUNTS TO FRUSTRATION ........................................ 13
5 Specific Grounds of Frustration .................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Destruction of subject Matter .............................................................................................. 14
5.2 Death or Incapacity of party ................................................................................................. 14
5.3 Government, Administrative or Legislative Intervention ..................................................... 15
5.4 Intervention of War .............................................................................................................. 15
6 Effects of Frustration .................................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Frustration should not be self-induced................................................................................. 16
6.2 Frustration operates Automatically ...................................................................................... 16
6.3 Act of God ............................................................................................................................. 17
 Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act 1943 ......................................................................... 17
7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 17
8 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 18
8.1 Books ..................................................................................................................................... 18
8.2 Webliography ........................................................................................................................ 18

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This project would follow doctrinal methodology. Descriptive and analytical research
methodology will be followed by researcher in this project. Primary and secondary sources
have been helpful in gathering relevant information regarding project. Secondary sources like
books and articles which are available online have been used. Books suggested by faculty

4
have also been referred to have a detailed idea about subject matter and to give a firm
structure to project. Footnotes have also been given to acknowledge wherever necessary.

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:

The researchers have followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this
project.

Aims and objectives:

 The project essentially seeks to outline the relevant contract provisions pertaining to
frustration.
 To identify and compare the English law and Indian law.
 To examine the current status of frustration in the eye of Law of contract with some
recent cases.

Research questions:

1. What is the important relevant provision pertaining to frustration?

2. Difference between the Indian and English law regarding frustration.
3. What is current status of frustration in eye of law of contract with some recent cases?
4. Difference between discharge and frustration of contract.

Hypothesis:

The researcher believes that there is a clear picture; frustration will take place in rare
occasions falling under those specific categories. However, no clear-cut list of events leading

5
to frustration exists. In addition to this the doctrine has been developed on a case-by-case
approach. Therefore, it is far from clear as to what equals to a frustrated contract.

1 Introduction-
‘Discharge’ is the technical name for bringing contractual relations to an end. A contract can
be discharged in one of four ways. The main one is Frustration.

‘Frustration’ is an event that occurs outside the parties’ control, which prevents the contract
from being carried out

Frustration under English law is a doctrine, which acts as a device to discharge contracts
where an unexpected event either transmutes contractual obligations impossible, or
drastically modifies the party’s initial purpose for entering into the contract.

To understand the concept of frustration first we analyse one famous case decided by
BLACKBURN J in the case of Taylor vs. Caldwell.1 “rule is only applicable when the
contract is positive and absolute, and not subject to any condition either expressed or
implied”. The fact of the case is that the defendants had agreed to let the plaintiffs the use of
their music hall between certain dates for the purpose of holding a concert there. But before
that first day on which a concert was to be given, the hall was destroyed by fire without the
fault of either party.2

The plaintiff sued the defendants for their loss. It was held that the contract was not absolute,
as its performance depended upon the continued existence of the hall. It was, therefore,
“subject to an implied condition that the parties shall be excused in case, before breach,
performance becomes impossible from the perishing of thing without default of the
contractor.”

Thus, the doctrine of frustration comes into play in two types of situation, first, where the
performance is physically cut off, and, second, where the object has failed. The Supreme

1
QUEEN’S BENCH, (1863) 3 B &S 826.

2
http://www.webstor.com

6
Court of India has held that Section 56 will apply to both kinds of frustration. Referring to the
section, B. K. MUKHERJEA J of the Supreme Court observed in Satyabrata Ghose vs.
Mugneeram Bangur & Co.3 as follows:

This much is clear that the word “impossible” has not been used here in the sense of physical
or literal impossibility. The performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may
be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the
parties had in view. And if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the
very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the
promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.

2 Historical overview-
In the seventeenth century the judges in Paradine vs. Jane4laid down what is sometimes
called the rule as to absolute contracts. It amounts to the law casts a duty upon a man which,
through no fault of his, he is unable to perform, he is excused for non -performance; but if he
binds himself by contract absolutely to do a thing, he cannot escape liability for damages for
proof that as events turned out performance is futile or even impossible. It was held that
“when the party by his own contracts creates a duty, he is bound to make it good, if he may,
notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against
it by his contract; though the land be surrounded or gained by the seas, or made barren by
wildfire, yet the lessor will have his whole rent.

The doctrine of frustration, the frustration is divided into two important parts:

Initial impossibility: Section 56 first lays down the simple principal that “an agreement to
do an act impossible in itself is void.” For example, an agreement to discover a treasure by
magic, being impossible of performance, is void.

Subsequent Impossibility: Section 56 lays down the effect of subsequent impossibility of

performance. Sometimes the performance of a contract is quite possible when it is made by

3
Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. AIR 1954 SC 44.
4
Paradine vs. Jane 91 LQR 247.

7
the parties. But some event subsequently happens which renders its performance impossible
or unlawful. In either case the contract becomes void. Where, for example, after making a
contract of marriage, one of the parties goes mad, or where a contract is made for the import
of goods and the import is thereafter forbidden by a government order .In this context there
was a famous case of Chamanlal Jain vs. Arun Kumar Jain5, in this case the court held that
where a singer contracts to sing and becomes too ill to do so, the contract in each case
becomes void.

3 Theories of frustration of contract-

The theories of frustration are divided into two important parts:

3.1 Theory of Implied Term

The theory of implied term was explained by LORD LOREBURN in F.A. Tamplin co ltd vs.
Anglo – Mexican Petroleum Products co ltd6in these words: A court can ought to examine the
contract and the circumstances in which it was made, not of course to vary, but to explain it,
in order to see whether or not from the nature of it the parties must have made their bargain
on the footing that a particular thing or state of things would continue to exist. And if they
must have done so, then a term to that effect will be implied, though it be not expressed in the
contract.

In another case LORD SUMNER observed in Joseph Constantine steamship Line Ltd VS.
Imperial smelting corpn Ltd7 in this case Lordship observed that the meaning of the
frustration of contract and its application to the actual occurrences, the court has to decide,
not what the parties actually intended but what as reasonable men they should have intended.

3.2 Just and Reasonable Solution

5
Chamanlal Jain vs. Arun Kumar Jain AIR 1996 DEL 108
6
F.A. Tamplin co ltd vs. Anglo – Mexican Petroleum Products co ltd (1916) 2 AC 397
7
Joseph Constantine steamship Line Ltd VS. Imperial smelting corpn Ltd (1942) AC 154.

8
According to DENNING LJ attempted to explain the doctrine of frustration on a different
basis in the case of British Movietonews Ltd vs. District Cinemas Ltd8. He said the court
really exercises a qualifying power a power to qualify the absolute, literal or wide terms of
the contracts in order to do what is just and reasonable in the new situation.

 Theories not Applicable in India

Referring to the theories B.K. MUKHERJEA J of the supreme court said in Satyabrata
case.9in India the only doctrine that we have to go by is that of supervening impossibility or
illegality as laid down in section 56 of the contract Act, taking the word ‘impossible’ in its
practical and not literal sense. Section 56 does not leave the matter to be determined
according to the intention of the parties.

 Commercial Hardship

The alteration of circumstances must be “such as to upset altogether the purpose of the
contract. Some delay or some change is very common in all human affairs, and it cannot be
supposed that any bargain has been made on the tacit condition that such a thing will not
happen in any degree. It is observed by Lord LOREBURN in F.A. Tamplin steamship Co. v
Anglo Mexican Petroleum Products10. A situation like this has been described as one of
commercial hardship, which may make the performance unprofitable or more expensive or
dilatory, but is not sufficient to excuse performance, for it does “not bring about a
fundamentally different situation such as to frustrate the venture.” The doctrine of frustration
or impossibility does not apply to a situation so as to excuse performance. “Where
performance is not practically cut off, but only rendered more difficult or costly. Such cases
may not fall within the purview of section 56 and this is amply shown by the Privy Council
decision in Harnandrai Fulchand v. Pragdas11,in this case the privy council held that the
adventure was not frustrated as the stipulation as to delivery did not make delivery by the
mills a condition precedent. It was a simple case of breach.

8
British Movietonews Ltd vs. District Cinemas Ltd (1951) 1 KB 190
9
Satyabrata case AIR 1954 SC 44
10
F.A. Tamplin steamship Co. v Anglo Mexican Petroleum Products (1916) 2 AC 397

11
Harnandrai Fulchand v. Pragdas AIR 1923 PC 54. Later the case of Sachindra nath vs. Gopal Chandra (AIR 1949) CAL 240.

9
4 Comparative Study of Doctrine of Frustration

4.1 Contract frustration in English law

If a contract is made, and for whatever reason it later becomes impossible to for one party to
perform their obligations, then we need to think about frustration. Be careful to note that
frustration is about subsequent impossibility; if a contract was impossible to perform right
from the outset, then the issue is one of mistake and not frustration.

You should first establish whether or not the particular situation in question has been
expressly provided for in the contract. Such a provision is called a force majeure clause. For
example, a contract for the sale of some goods being imported by sea might say, “in the event
of the cargo being lost at sea, this is what happens…”. A force majeure clause is only valid if
the provision is full and complete – that is, it has to be specific about what risk is being
provided for.

If there isn’t a force majeure clause, then we need to look at the three sorts of frustration
established in case law:

 Supervening illegality. Since the contract was made, a new law has made it illegal to
carry it out. The best example is Avery v Bowden [14], in which a ship was supposed to
pick up some cargo at Odessa. With the outbreak of the Crimean War, the government
made it illegal to load cargo at an enemy port, so the ship couldn’t perform its
contract without breaking the law. The contract was therefore frustrated.
 Further performance rendered impossible. Two key reasons:
 Destruction of the subject matter: e.g. I agree to sell you my house, but then my house
burns down.
 The non-availability of a party, due to death, illness, or other exceptional
circumstances. E.g. you hire a famous band to play at a party, but the lead singer is
taken ill and can’t perform.[15]
 The nature of the contractual obligations becomes significantly different from what
was agreed:

10
  The non-occurrence of an event which formed the basis of the contract. A slightly
bizarre example: in 1901, a coronation procession was organized for King Edward
VIII, but it had to be cancelled at the last minute because the King was ill. Someone
had hired a flat for the day from which to view the procession. He refused to pay the
day’s rent, because he said the contract had been frustrated. The court said he was
right: the whole point of hiring the room was to watch the procession; if the
procession wasn’t going to happen, then there was no benefit to be gained from hiring
the room!
 Government intervention of some sort, which makes it unreasonable for the parties to
carry on with the contract.

There are some points to be careful of here:

 A contract isn’t frustrated just because it’s become more difficult or expensive to
perform. That’s a risk that you take when you enter into a contract. We’re looking
for some sort of physical impossibility.
 The supervening event must be beyond the control of both parties.
 The event must be unforeseeable by both parties.

The legal effects of frustration

 At common law: the contract is automatically brought to an end at the time of the
frustrating event.
 The relevant statute is the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. It only
applies where there’s no express provision in the contract for what happens if it’s
frustrated. The key provisions are:
 If some sort of pre-payment or deposit has been made, the buyer can get that pre-
payment back, minus any expenses incurred by the seller.
 If the contract has already been partly performed, it’s a bit more complicated. You
have to pay for any benefit you’ve already received. Suppose the contract is for a
complete garden makeover, and at the time of the frustrating event, the contractor has
already installed a swimming pool in your garden. You have to compensate the
gardener for the expenses he’s incurred in installing your pool.[17]

11
4.2 Doctrine of frustration under Indian Contract Act
According to Section 56, an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void (for example,
an agreement to discover treasure by magic). Supervening impossibility or illegality refers to
the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event or change of circumstances beyond the
contemplation of the parties; such event or change of circumstances must be so fundamental
as to be regarded by law as striking at the root of contract as a whole or the basis of the
contract no longer exists. In this regard there was a famous case of Syed khurseed Ali vs.
State of orissa12, in this case the hon’ble court held that Doctrine of frustration under section
56 is attracted in the event of a subsequent unforeseen event or contingency for which,
neither of the parties is responsible neither parties is responsible.13

Subsequent impossibility in the UK is referred to as Doctrine of Frustration. A contract is

deemed to have become impossible of performance and, thus, void under the following
circumstances:
a) destruction of the subject matter of the contract;

b) by death or permanent incapacity of the parties (like insanity) where the contract is
personal in nature;
c) supervening impossibility or illegality, involving actions contrary to law or public policy;
d) outbreak of war, war restrictions (avoidance of trading with alien enemy, and so on);
e) imposition of government restriction or orders or acquisition by government; and
f) non-existence or non-occurrence of a particular state of things. Apart from the above
circumstances, impossibility does not discharge a person from the contract. He who agrees to
do an act should do it unless impossibility arises in any of the ways mentioned above.14.

 Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates:

"Agreement to do impossible act: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.

Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful: A contract to do an act

12
Syed khurseed Ali vs. State of orissa AIR 2007 ORI 56.

13
http://www.manupatra.com

14
http://www.wilson.com

12
which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the
promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or
unlawful. Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or
unlawful: Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with
reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be
impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any
loss which such promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise

 IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE AMOUNTS TO

FRUSTRATION
The essential principles on which the doctrine of frustration is based is the impossibility, or,
rather, the impracticability in law or fact of the performance of a contract brought about by an
unforeseen or unforeseeable sweeping change in the circumstances intervening after the
contract was made. In other words, while the contract was properly entered into in the context
of certain circumstances which existed at the time it fell to be made, the situation becomes so
radically changed subsequently that the very foundation which subsisted underneath the
contract as it were gets shaken, nay, the change of circumstances is so fundamental that it
strikes at the very root of the contract, then the principle of frustration steps in and the parties
are excused from or relieved of the responsibility of performing the contract which otherwise
lay upon them. Whether the contract has become impossible of performance can be
determined with reference to the terms of the contract and the supervening circumstances. If
the supervening circumstances are such which were within the contemplation of the parties at
the time of the contract or which could reasonably be within their contemplation, it could take
the case out of the purview.15

5 Specific Grounds of Frustration

“The principle of frustration of contract, or of impossibility of performance is applicable to a

greater variety of contracts. It is therefore, not possible to lay down an exhaustive list of

15
http://www.ezinearticles.com

13
situations in which the doctrine is going to be applied so as to excuse performance. Yet the
following grounds of frustration have become well established.

5.1 Destruction of subject Matter

The doctrine of impossibility applies with full force where the actual and specific subject
matter of the contract has ceased to exist. On this point in India there was a recent case of
Supreme Court of India Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries v. Union of India 16in this
case the Supreme Court held that Force Majeure clause can be invoked when it pertains to the
contractual obligation that has purportedly become impossible of performance.

In other case of W.B. Khadi and Village Industries Board v. Sagore Banerjee17,in this case
the Supreme Court held that where tenanted premises comprised land and building, the court
said that once the structure was completely destroyed, the tenancy ceased. No right was
available to the tenant to apply for possession if the landlord re constructed the premises.18

In another famous case of Ghee seng Motor v. Ling19 in this case there was a contract
between carriage of goods by sea, a vessel sank with cargo. There was evidence to show that
the vessel had started taking in water. When the vessel was discovered to be tilting, the water
in the bilge was pumped out but no action was taken to go to the nearest port to have the
vessel berthed and the condition of the vessel checked. The court said that the sinking of the
vessel could not be described as an inevitable accident. Reasonable care had not been taken to
prevent the sinking of the vessel. The defence of frustration failed.

5.2 Death or Incapacity of party

The whole contract is based on the assumption of the continuance of life, and on the
conditions, which existed at the time. That assumption is made by both; it is really the
foundation of the contract. In this regard there was a famous English case Robinson v.

16
Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries v. Union of India AIR 2007 SCC 679.
17
W.B. Khadi and Village Industries Board v. Sagore Banerjee AIR 2004 SCC 991
18
http://www.manupatra.com

19
Ghee seng Motor v. Ling I994 LJ 382(MALAYSIA).

14
Davison20, there was a contract between the pianist and sponsor that she plays piano at a
concert. On the morning of the day she informed the plaintiff that she was too ill to attend the
concert that result plaintiff lost a sum of money. The plaintiff’s action for breach of contract
failed. The court said that under the circumstances she was not merely excused from playing,
but she was also not at liberty to play, if she was unfit to do so.

In India in this regard there was a recent case of N. Chandrasekhar v T.N. Cricket Assn. 21 In
this court held that a one day international match could not be held because of rainfall, actual
buyers of tickets only were allowed refund to the extent of 1/3 of the ticket money.

5.3 Government, Administrative or Legislative Intervention

A contract will be dissolved when legislative or administrative intervention has so directly operated
upon the fulfilment of the contract for a specific work as to transform the contemplated conditions
of performance. In the case of Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyaliram Jagannath22 the fact of the case is that
the buyer applied for licence of import but the rules had been changed and to obtain a licence he
must show that he had used an equal quantity of Indian jute. Thus, the buyer failed to supply the
licence and was sued for breach. He pleaded frustration caused by the change in Government policy.
But he was held liable. SHELAT J pointed out that if the government had completely forbidden
imports, section 56 would have applied. But the policy of the government was that the
licensing authority would scrutinize the case of each applicant on its own merits.

5.4 Intervention of War

Intervention of war or warlike conditions in the performance of a contract has often created
difficult question. In a case before the Patna High Court A.F. Ferguson v. Lalit Mohan
Ghose23, performance of a contract of life insurance had become impossible because the
insurer was a German company and on the outbreak of war its business was closed by the
Government of India and the disposal of pending policies was handed over to the money paid
by him under the policy.

20
Robinson v. Davison 1871 LR 6.

21
N. Chandrasekhar v T.N. Cricket Assn. AIR 2006 3 MAD.

22
Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyaliram Jagannath AIR 1968 SC 522.

23
A.F. Ferguson v. Lalit Mohan Ghose AIR 1954 PAT 596.

15
6 Effects of Frustration
“It is well settled that if and when there is frustration the dissolution of the contract occurs
automatically. It does not depend, as does rescission of a contract, on the ground of
repudiation or breach, or on the choice or election of either party.

6.1 Frustration should not be self-induced

Explaining the principle that frustration should not be self-induced, Lord WRIGHT said
in Maritime National Fish Ltd vs. Ocean Trawlers Ltd24in this case the appellants hired the
respondent’s trawler, called “St. Cuthbert” to be employed in fishing industry only. Both
parties knew that the trawler could be used for that purpose only under a licence from the
Canadian government. The appellants were using five trawlers and, therefore, applied for five
licences. Only three were granted and the government asked the appellants to name three
trawlers and they named trawlers other than the St. Cuthbert. They then repudiated the charter
and pleaded frustration in response to the respondent’s action for the hire.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that the frustration in this case was the
result of the appellants own choice of excluding the respondents ship from the licence and,
therefore they were not discharged from the contract.25

6.2 Frustration operates Automatically

Frustration operates automatically to discharge the contract irrespective of the individuals
concerned, their temperaments and failings, their interest and circumstances. The legal effect
of frustration does not depend on their intention or their opinions, or even knowledge, as to
the event. The belief, knowledge and intention of the parties are evidence, but evidence only
on which the court has to form its conclusion whether the changed circumstances destroyed
altogether the basis of the adventure and its underlying object. In the case of Bombay Dyeing
& Mfg v State of Bombay26 in this case Supreme Court has laid down that frustration puts an
end to the liability to perform the contract. It does not exterminate the contract for all
purposes. For example, whether the doctrine of frustration would apply or not has to be

24
Maritime National Fish Ltd vs. Ocean Trawlers Ltd 1935 AC 525.
25
http://www.legalserviceindia.com
26
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg v State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 328.

16
decided within the framework of the contract and, if the contract contains an arbitration
clause, the arbitrator could decide the matter of frustration.[35]

6.3 Act of God

The act of god is one of the important effects in the doctrine of frustration. The act of god we
find in the law of tort but now we are discussing the expression in doctrine of frustration. Sir
EDWARD COKE was the first who used the expression Act of God in the law. According to
him the act of god means storms, lightning or etc are the part of Act of God and the most
important point is that which is the intervention could not happen by the human being. In this
regard there was a famous case called Shelley’s case, in this case the hon’ble court held that
Act of God means storms, lightning or etc are act of god as they could not happen by the
intervention of man.

 Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act 1943

Any other contracts for the sale or from the sale and delivery of specific goods, where the
contract is frustrated by reason of the fact that the goods have perished.

In the first type of contract of sale excluded from the Act of 1943, the risk has not passed to
the buyer, while in the second type it has so passed. It thus seems that all contracts for the
sale of specific goods are kept outside the operation of that Act, whether risk has passed or
not, provided only that the cause of frustration is the perishing of the goods. But if the goods
are not specific or if the frustration is due to some other reason, such as requisitioning, the act
of 1943 applies.

7 CONCLUSION
The Doctrine of Frustration The doctrine of frustration describes a situation where after the
conclusion of a contract, unforeseeable events occur, rendering the performance of that
contract impossible. Under that doctrine, courts have the power to discharge any contract that
falls within its scope as "frustrated". In the present case, our task is to examine whether the
agreement between Jerry and Prudence is valid, or something "radically different" from that
which was originally agreed, hence a frustrated contract. Courts nowadays seem to be
reluctant when it comes to discharging contracts as frustrated. The current policy on such

17
matters is to prevent parties from using the doctrine as a defence protecting them from a bad
bargain. Another parameter is an expected foreseeability of events occurring after the
formation of a contract, events which would have a negative impact on its validity. This is
why we should eliminate such possibilities before reaching a "verdict"

The doctrine of frustration seems to become more and more rare in the courts of England.
Since the frustration of contracts is highly restricted, a defence in frustration of a contract is
highly unlikely because the key element is that a valid contract has been made and the good
faith it has been structured upon should be under respect.

8 Bibliography
8.1 Books
Singh Avtar, “Law of Contract”, Eastern Book House Lucknow, Edition: X 2008.
Bangia R.K, “Law of contract”, Allahabad law agency, edition 2017.

8.2 Webliography
http://www.legalserviceindia.com

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/DOCTRINE-OF-FRUSTRATION-NEW-DIMENSION-3057.asp

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-theory-of-frustration-in-english-law-
contract-law-essay.php

18