Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility
Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility
1. Definition and Concept
The Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility refers to a legal principle which states that a contract becomes void or discharged when, after its formation, an unforeseen event occurs which makes the performance of the contract impossible or unlawful.
This impossibility must arise after the contract is entered into, without the fault of either party.
This doctrine is closely related to Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with the “Agreement to do impossible act” and frustration of contract.
2. Essentials of the Doctrine
For the doctrine to apply, the following conditions must be met:
The impossibility must arise after the contract is made.
The impossibility must be not due to the fault of the parties.
The performance of the contract becomes objectively impossible (not just difficult or expensive).
The impossibility must be due to some unforeseen event, such as natural calamities, government intervention, or change in law.
3. Legal Position under Indian Contract Act
Section 56 states that a contract to do an act which is impossible or unlawful is void.
It recognizes supervening impossibility as a valid ground for discharge of contractual obligations.
The contract is said to be “frustrated” and is therefore void.
4. Illustrative Cases
a) Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954 AIR 44)
Facts: The defendant was to deliver land, but it was requisitioned by the government.
Issue: Whether requisitioning of land made performance impossible and discharged contract.
Held: Temporary requisition did not amount to impossibility. Doctrine applies only when performance is impossible, not merely delayed.
b) Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 (English Case, but influential in India)
Facts: A music hall was contracted for an event but was destroyed by fire before the date.
Held: The contract was discharged due to impossibility of performance arising from unforeseen destruction.
This case laid the foundation of the doctrine of frustration.
c) Krell v. Henry (1903) (English case influencing Indian law)
Contract for renting a room to watch King’s coronation procession; the procession was canceled.
Held: Contract frustrated due to supervening impossibility of purpose.
5. Scope and Limitations
Impossibility must be objective, not subjective.
Mere difficulty, increased expense, or inconvenience does not amount to impossibility.
Parties cannot claim impossibility if caused by their own fault or negligence.
Contracts involving personal skill are not excused by impossibility.
Temporary impossibility (like in Satyabrata Ghose) may not discharge the contract.
6. Difference from Other Doctrines
| Doctrine | Meaning | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Supervening Impossibility | Contract performance becomes impossible after formation | Discharges contract |
| Doctrine of Frustration | Contract purpose frustrated due to unforeseen event | Overlaps with impossibility |
| Doctrine of Force Majeure | Contractual clause excusing parties on specified events | Based on agreement, not law |
7. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility protects parties from being bound by contracts that become objectively impossible to perform due to unforeseen events beyond their control. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, through Section 56, codifies this principle, ensuring fairness and justice in contractual relations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments