Garima Yadav, NMIMS, Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
ABSTRACT
Impossibility can exist at the moment of contracting or develop afterwards. It could be a matter of physical or legal impossibility. In any situation, the agreement is null and void from the start. The point is that the law can't make the impossible happen. The contract is terminated when the subject substance is destroyed due to practical impossibility. Even if the party' intended object does not materialise, the contract is frustrated. For example, when a flat was rented for the objective of witnessing coronation ceremonies on predetermined dates and the coronation ceremony was eventually cancelled, it was determined that the defendant was not responsible for the balance of rent because the contract's object was frustrated by the coronation's non-occurrence. The Supreme Court did explain the doctrine of frustration in the case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram1, in which Justice Mukherjee stated that the primary concept upon which doctrine of frustration is focussed is that of the impossibility of contract execution, and that the terms frustration and impossibility could be used interchangeably.
Frustration is a word that is commonly used in contractual agreements between individuals, and it relates to being defeated in a broad sense. The phrase "frustration" refers to failed transactions that were never completed for whatever justification2. The principle of frustration has emerged as one of the most common difficulties in contract law when it comes to unsuccessful contracts.
