C T XAVIER Vs. P V JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals require consideration of various implications and applications of the basis Common Law Rule of contract that a man is bound to perform the obligation which he has undertaken and cannot claim to be excused by the mere fact that performance has subsequently become impossible. The law cannot regard a promise to do something obviously impossible as of any value, and such a promise is therefore no consideration. A man who promises without qualification is bound by the terms of his promise if he is found at all. If the parties do not mean their agreement to be unconditional, it is for them to qualify it by such conditions as they think fit. But a condition need not always be expressed in words; there are conditions which may be implied from the nature of the contract, and in certain cases where as event making performance impossible is of such such nature and character that it cannot reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation, if the contracting parties when the contract was made agreed that such performance of the promise is excused. On this principle a contract is discharged if there is no fault of the promisor; if the performance is rendered impossible by law; if the subject matter assured by the parties to exist or continue is destroyed or an event assured as the foundations of the contract does not happen or fail to exist, although the performance may be literally possible and finally if the promisor dies or is disabled.

(2.) Doctrine of frustration or as is otherwise known as of impossibility is based on the legal provision for the discharge of a contract, subsequent to its formation, in the event of change of circumstances rendering the contract illegal or physically impossible of performance. It is also called a situation leading to frustration of the adventure, covering all cases of contract. This is emerged out of the necessity of various occasions making it necessary to consider the situation due to subsequent changes creating difficulties in performance. Such occasions requiring a situation of discharge or excuse of performance had to be dealt with by the courts.

(3.) Illustratively such instances are: