In American law it is the Theory of Impossibility and Impracticability and in English regulation it is the Frustration of Contract and Frustration of Purpose below the Doctrine of Frustration and underneath Indian legal system it is protected underneath Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.

The doctrine of frustration is primarily based at the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia. It way that law does no longer compel the not possible'. in a settlement among the 2 parties, there's a fundamental assumption that the overall performance of the settlement depends upon the on-going existence of a given man or woman or an issue and any impossibility bobbing up in a while (by means of the perishing of the individual or the thing) shall excuse the performance of the contractual obligation. This sort of condition is implied in all contracts.

Regulation referring to frustration in India is dealt underneath Section 56 of the Indian contract act, 1872 which says that:

An agreement to do an act not possible in itself is void. a contract to do an act which, after the agreement is made, will become not possible or, through purpose of a few occasion which the promisor couldn't save you, illegal, end up void while the act will become not possible or unlawful, where one man or woman has promise to do something which he recognize, or with reasonable diligence might have acknowledged, and which the promise did not understand, to be not possible or unlawful, such promisor ought to make reimbursement to such promise for any loss which one of these promise sustains via the non- overall performance of the promise. Section 56 of the Indian contract act, 1872 lays down a nice rule of law and the courts can't travel outside the time period of that section. It widely simplifies the English rule and it neither leaves the problem to be determined in line with the intention of the parties nor does it go away any scope for the attention of the distinct theories propounded in England. The premise of the doctrine of frustration in India has been defined in Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur through justice Mukherjee. It is as follows:

• The essential idea upon which the doctrine is primarily based is that of impossibility of overall performance of the contract. In reality, impossibility and frustration are often used as interchangeable expressions.
• The changed circumstances make the performance of the contract not possible and the parties are absolved from the in addition overall performance of it as they did now not promise to perform impossibility.
• The doctrine of frustration is truly an element or % or the regulation of the release of contract with the aid of cause of supervening impossibility or illegibility of the act agreed to be executed and consequently comes in the purview of Section 56 of the Indian agreement act, 1872

Therefore it can be said that the provisions contained in section 56 of the Indian contract act, 1872 lays down a high quality rule of regulation and English government therefore, cannot be of direct assistance, although it can't be denied that they truly have a persuasive price in displaying how English courts have treated instances below comparable situations or below comparable situations.