Doctrine of Impossibility: Subsequent and Initial Impossibility

Articles

Doctrine of Impossibility: Subsequent and Initial Impossibility

February 3, 2025

The Doctrine of Impossibility in contract law addresses situations where contractual obligations become unfeasible due to unforeseen events. In the Indian context, this doctrine is encapsulated in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with both initial and subsequent impossibility.

MEANING AND EXPLANATION

Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states:
“An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.”

This provision covers two scenarios:

Initial Impossibility: When the act agreed upon is impossible from the outset.
Subsequent Impossibility: When the act becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is formed.

INITIAL IMPOSSIBILITY

Initial impossibility refers to situations where the performance of the contract is inherently impossible at the time of its formation. Such contracts are void ab initio.

Example: A agrees to sell a specific painting to B. Unknown to both, the painting was destroyed in a fire before the agreement. The contract is void due to initial impossibility.

SUBSEQUENT IMPOSSIBILITY (DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION)

Subsequent impossibility, or the Doctrine of Frustration, applies when a contract becomes impossible to perform due to unforeseen events occurring after its formation. This is recognized under Section 56, which states:

“A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.”

ESSENTIALS OF SUBSEQUENT IMPOSSIBILITY

For the doctrine to apply:

Valid Contract: A lawful agreement must exist between the parties.
Performance Pending: Some contractual obligations remain unfulfilled.
Unforeseen Event: An event occurs, post-contract formation, rendering performance impossible or unlawful.
No Fault of Parties: The event must be beyond the control of both parties.

CAUSES OF SUBSEQUENT IMPOSSIBILITY

Destruction of Subject Matter: If the specific subject matter essential for performance is destroyed, the contract is void.
- Case Reference: In Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), a music hall was rented for concerts but was destroyed by fire before the event. The court held the contract void due to the destruction of the subject matter.
Death or Incapacity: Contracts involving personal skills or qualifications become void if the concerned individual dies or becomes incapacitated.
Non-occurrence of Contemplated Event: If an event central to the contract’s purpose does not occur, the contract may be frustrated.
- Case Reference: In Krell v. Henry (1903), a room was rented to view a coronation procession, which was later canceled. The court held the contract frustrated due to the non-occurrence of the event.
Government Intervention: Changes in law or government policies making the contract’s performance unlawful can lead to frustration.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine does not apply in the following scenarios:

Self-induced Impossibility: If a party’s actions lead to the impossibility, they cannot claim frustration.
Foreseeable Events: If the event causing impossibility was foreseeable and not accounted for in the contract, the doctrine doesn’t apply.
Commercial Impracticability: Mere difficulty or increased expense does not constitute impossibility.

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND MAXIMS

Section 56: Addresses both initial and subsequent impossibility.
Legal Maxim: “Lex non cogit ad impossibilia” – The law does not compel the impossible.

NOTABLE CASE LAWS

Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954): The Supreme Court of India held that the word “impossible” in Section 56 does not mean literal impossibility but includes impracticability due to unforeseen events.
Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh (1971): The court ruled that a contract becomes void if an unforeseen event, like a natural disaster, renders its performance impossible.

CONCLUSION

The Doctrine of Impossibility ensures fairness by discharging parties from contractual obligations when unforeseen events render performance impossible. Understanding its nuances is crucial for legal professionals and students navigating contract law.