Spread the love

Post Views: 1,700

This article is written by Abhishek Kumar of 1^st Year of BA.LL.B of Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) New Law College, Pune, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Table of Contents

Abstract

In the complex web of legal agreements, the dynamics of performance, Impossibility, and Frustration of contract cast a shadow over the world of contracts, where the unforeseen challenges and legal complexities can turn the most meticulously crafted agreement into the battleground of dispute. Contracts as the backbone of legal relationships, dictate the terms and conditions that bind parties together. The concepts of performance, impossibility and frustration within these contracts navigate the fine line between expectation and reality, shaping the legal landscape where branches and disputes unfold. This article aims to explore in detail the Performance, Impossibility and frustration of contract.

Keywords

Performance or tender, frustration, unforeseen challenges, Contract, Parties, Legal complexity, agreement, dispute, expectation and reality.

Introduction

The concept of performance of the contract is a crucial aspect of the contractual agreement, Outline the responsibility of both parties involved. Section 37 emphasises that the parties must either perform or offer to perform their respective promise unless such performance is excused under the provision of the act or any other law. Section 38, such as being unconditional, making proper time and place, and giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity to ascertain the conformity of performance with the contract. The concept of valid tender is further explored, emphasising the unconditional nature, proper timing and place promise’s opportunity to verify the comfort of goods and services. Sections 42, 43, and 44 discuss the liability of joint promisor, including the devolution of joint liabilities, the promise’s right to compel one or more joint promisors to perform, and the ability of each joint promisor to compel contribution from others.

Performance of Contract

The phrase ‘performance of contract’ denotes the completion of obligations by both parties involved in the contract. It is an essential aspect of contractual agreements that mandates the promisor and promisee to fulfil their respective obligations, Which the contract placed upon them.

Example: Mr. X visits a Car Showroom to buy a car. The owner of the car showroom delivers the car and Mr. X pays the price. The contract is said to have been discharged by mutual performance.

According to Indian Contract Act 1872 Section 37 “The parties to contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises unless Such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provision of this act, or any other law.”[1]

Parties in the contract have duty to contract:

a) Perform; or
b) offer to perform;

their respective promises.

Example: Mr. X promise to sell his car to Mr. Y on a certain 5 Jan 20XX on Price 1 Cr. Mr. X died before the contracted date. Mr. X’s representative is bound to deliver the Car to Mr. Y, and Mr Y is bound to pay INR 1 Cr. To Mr X’s representatives.

Types of performance

i) Actual Performance: Actual performance means discharge from liability which a person has undertaken to perform. No other obligation to perform. He is said to have made the actual performance of the promise.

Example: X agree to sell his Bike to Y and Y promises to pay for it. X Sell Bike on the due date and Y make payment. This is actual Performance.

ii) Attempted performance: Attempted performance refers to the time when a performance is due. If the promisee prevents the promisor from fulfilling their obligation or liability, the promisor cannot be discharged. However, if the promisor intends to fulfil their obligation but is unable to do so due to an intervening disability, it is known as the attempted performance of the promise.

Attempted performance is also known as the Tender. A Tender Can be of two types

a) Tender of goods and services: discharge from the contract to complete terms and conditions in accordance with the contract. If the goods and services so tendered are not accepted then the promisor can’t be taken back and he will be discharged from the liability or obligation.

b) Tender of money: In cases where a debtor proposes to tender the amount owed to the creditor but refuses to accept the money. it is crucial to note that the debtor remains liable for the outstanding obligation. It is, therefore, imperative to understand that a mere offer of payment does not result in the discharge of the debt. This principle is widely recognized in the legal realm and should be taken into consideration in all relevant transactions.

Offer to performance or tender

when the promisor is willing to perform or tender the contract and he offers to perform the same, the promisee must accept the performance of a contract. If the offer of performance is not accepted by the promisee, then the promisor can’t be blamed for the non-performance of the contract.

For example, X contracts with Y to repair Y’s House X neglects or refuses to point out to X the places in which his house requires repair X is excused for the non-performance of the contract if it is caused by such neglect or refusal.

An offer of performance is known as a tender under English law. The essentials of a valid offer of performance or tender and the effect thereof have been mentioned in section 38 which is as follows-

Section 38 effect of refusal to accept the offer of performance.– Where a promisor has made an offer of performance to the promisee and the offer is not accepted. The promissor is not responsible for non-performance, nor does he thereby lose his right under the contract.[2]

Offer must fulfil the following conditions:

It must be unconditional;
It must be made at the proper time and place, under such circumstances that the person to Whom it is made may have a reasonable opportunity of ascertaining that the person by whom it is made is able and willing there and then to do the whole of what he is bound by his promise to do;
If the offer is to deliver anything to the promisee the promisee must have a reasonable opportunity of seeing that the thing offered is the thing which the promisor is bound by his promise to deliver;
An offer of performance to one of the joint promises is a valid tender.

Essentials of valid tender

The tender must be unconditional;
The tender must be made at the proper time and place;
The promisee must be given an opportunity to ascertain that the goods are according to the contract;
An offer of performance to one of the joint promisees is a valid tender;

1. It must be unconditional: – If the promisor offered to pay only a part of the sum due, but says that it should be considered to be a full payment he is imposing a condition and therefore this cannot be considered to be a valid tender. Payment by cheque is deemed to be subject to encashment, therefore it is only a conditional tender when the tender is a conditional one, the promisee can lawfully refuse to accept the same.

Navin Chandra v. Yogendra Nath[3]: The tenant sent to cheque in payment of rent to the landlord. The landlord returned these cheques and insisted on the payment of rent in cash. The tenant did not pay cash, and the landlord sued him for ejectment. The tenant contended that, since he had tendered payment by cheque, it was a valid tender of payment of rent and the landlord could not sue him for ejectment. It was held that unless, by any agreement or custom, the cheque was recognised as valid tender, a debtor cannot claim a legal right to make payment by cheque. if the creditor insists on being paid in cash. In this case, the parties not being businessmen, nor did the debit arise out of a business transaction, and there was no agreement or custom permitting payment by cheque. The landlord was held to be justified in refusing payment by cheque on the ground that it was not a valid tender. The action of ejectment was therefore successful.

2. The tender must be at proper time and place: It is further necessary that it “must be made at proper time and place, and the person who is made under such circumstances that the person to whom it is made must have a reasonable opportunity to ascertained that the person by whom is made is able and willing there, and then to do the whole of what he is bound by promise to do.” If the tender is made at the proper time and place as required by the contract, and the promise has the reasonable opportunity of examining the performance, is otherwise an order, it is a valid tender.

Startup v. Macdonald[4]: The plaintiff agreed to supply 10 tonnes of linseed oil to the defendant. The delivery was agreed to be made within the last 14 days of March. The plaintiff tender to the oil on the last date of the performance i.e., 31^st March, which may happen to be a Saturday at about 9:00 PM. Since the time of supply was late in the night, the defendant refused to take the oil. It was held that the defendant had full opportunity to examine, weigh and receive the oil till midnight of the said 31^st March. And, therefore, the tender was valid, and the defendant was liable to pay damage for non-acceptance of oil.

Demby Hamilton & Co. V. Barden[5]: In this case contract for the supply 30 tons of apple juice, juice was tendered, but the buyer refused to take delivery of some of the instalment at the time of tender. The juice was fresh, but subsequently, it became putrid. It was held that the buyer was at fault for not taking the delivery of goods when the tender and therefore he was liable for the loss caused by Juice becoming putrid.

It is also necessary that the person to whom the tender is made should be provided with a reasonable opportunity certain that the person making the tender is able and willing there, and then to do a whole of what he is bound by his promise to do. A tender of part of sum due, or goods which are less in quantity than agreed is not valid tender. Moreover, there should be ability on the part of the person making the tender to perform the whole contract then and there. If neither the agreement between the parties nor the usage or custom of trade warrant payment by Jack payment by cheque cannot considered be a valid tender. In such cases, the proper tender Payment is in cash.

3. The promisee must be given an opportunity to ascertain that the goods are according to the contract:

if the promisor has offered to deliver anything to the promisee, the promisee must have a reasonable opportunity of seeing that the thing offered is the thing which the promisor is bound by the promise to deliver.

Illustration: A contract to deliver to B at his warehouse on the 1^st of March. 1870, 100 bales of cotton of a particular quality. To make an offer of performance with the effects stated in this section. A must bring the cotton to B’s warehouse on the appointed day under such circumstances that B may have a reasonable opportunity to satisfy himself that the thing offered is cotton of the quality contracted for and that there are a hundred bales.

4. An offer of performance to one of the joint promisees is a valid tender

When there are several joint promisees, an offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequence as an offer to all of them. This means that when there are none or more than one joint promisee, an offer of performance to one of them will be treated as a valid tender.

Performance on the death of a party

If a party to the contract dies before he has performed the contract, that by itself does not put an end to the obligation to perform the same promise. promisee bind the representative of the promisor in case of death of such promisor before the performance, unless the contrary intention appears from the contract.

Example: A promises to deliver goods to B on a certain day on payment of INR 1000 dies before that day. A’s representative is bound to deliver the goods to B, and B is bound to pay INR 1000 to A’s representative.[6]

If the performance of the contract requires personal skill or the contract is based on personal confidence between the parties, there is a presumption that the contract should be performed personally by the parties themselves. Such a contract cannot be enforced against the representative of the deceased party,

Example: A promise to paint a picture for B on a certain day and a certain price, A died before that day, then the contract can’t be enforced either by A’s representatives or by B.

Performance by the promiser for his agent

Whether only the promisor can perform the contract himself, or it can be performed through an agent. also, maybe questions arise in some cases.

Section 40 of the Contract Act makes the following provision in this regard. “If it appears from the nature of the case that it was the intention of parties to own a contract that, on a promise contained in it should be performed by the promisor himself. Promise must be performed by the promisor. In other cases, the promiser or his representative may employ or competent person to perform it.”[7]

If the contract is one which is based on personal confidence or involves exercise of personal skills like painting, dancing, singing, marrying or writing a book, etc, it would be apparent that the intention of parties is that it should be performed by the promisor himself and nobody else. Therefore, if A promises to paint a picture for B, A must perform, this promises personally.

Effect of accepting performance from Third person

Section 41. “When a promisee accepts the performance of the promise from the 3^rd person, he cannot afterward enforce it against the promisor.”[8]

There is nothing which prevents the promisee from accepting the performance of the contract from a person other than the promisor, when the promisee accepts the performance of the promise from the 3^rd person, he cannot, afterwards, enforce it against the promisor. By agreeing to the performance by 3^rd person, the promise he is deemed to have waived his right of getting the performance personally from the promisor.

Kapur Chand Godha v. Mir Nawab Himayali khan Azam jah: The court declared that the English and Indian law defers substantially on the point of performance of the contract by the representative of the deceased promisor in the British law system. The rule is that the 3rd party, or the representative of the deceased promisor, could discharge his obligation only in the case where it is clearly evident from the promise that it was in tension of party will the Formation of promise to bind their representative in case any of the promisor dies, In Indian law however, the position with respect to the performance of the promise by the representative of deceased on contrary to English law and the same could be inferred from word of section 41 of the Indian contract, which leaves no ray of doubt that in case where the appellant expressly declared the intention of performance of their promise from the 3rd party, they cannot afterwards enforce the promise against the promiser.

Joint promise and the nature of their liability

Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Contract Act deal with the question of liability of joint promisors.

Section 42. Devolution of the joint liabilities

When a joint promise has been made by two or more persons, then unless the contrary intention appears by the contract. All such persons during the joint lives and after the death of any of them, his representative jointly with the survivor or survivors, and after the death of the last survivor, the representative of all jointly, fulfil the promise.

Section 43. Any one of joint promisor may compelled to perform.

When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel [one or more] of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.

It depends on the discretion of the promise as to which of the promises is to be made liable for the whole of the promise. If one of the promisors is sued to meet the whole of the claim, he cannot say that as between different promises, his liability is for a part of the promise only.

Example X, Y and Z jointly promise to pay A 3000 rupees. A may compel either X, Y or Z to pay him 3000 rupees.

Each promiser may compel contribution- When two or more joint promisors may compel every other joint promisor to contribute equally with himself to perform on the promise unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.

Example: A and B joint promise to pay C ₹3000. B is unable to pay anything. And A is compelled to pay the whole fee entitled to receive 1500 rupees from B.

Sharing of loss by default and contribution– If any one of two or more joint promisors make a default in such contribution, the remaining joint Promisors must bear the loss arising from such default in equal share.

Example: A, B and C are under the joint promise to D 3,000 rupees. A and B only sureties for C. C failed to pay. A and B are compelled to pay the whole sum. They are entitled to recover it from C.

Section 44. Effect of release of one joint promisor

Where two or more persons have made a joint promise, a release of one such joint promisors by the promisee does not discharge the other joint from the promisor or joint promisor, and neither does it free the joint promisor. so, release from responsibility to the other joint promisor or joint promisors.

The release of one of the joint promisors does not release the other nor does it release the promisor who has been released by the promisee from the responsibility to contribute to the other joint promisor or promisors.

Devi Lal v. Himat Ram[9]

There was an action brought against the various partners of the partnership form for the recovery of money. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondent partners died. since his legal representative was not brought on record, the appeal abated against him. It was held that the abatement of the appeal against one partner did not result in the abatement of other respondents (partners).

Impossibility of performance

Section 56 of Indian Contract Act deals with the impossibility of performance.

Section 56 Says “An Agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void”.[10]

In the Impossibility of performance there are two types first Initial Impossibility and second Subsequent Impossibility.

1. Initial impossibility

Initial impossibility: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.

The aim of making any contract is that party should perform their respective promises. if a contract is impossible to perform, the parties to it will never be able to fulfil their object and hence such agreement is void.

For example, A agreed with B to discover treasure by Magic. The performance of the agreement is impossible, the agreement is void. Similarly, an agreement with a dead man to life is also void.

Section 56 based on Maxim’s “les non cogit ad impossibilia” Which means the “law does not compile a man to do what he cannot possibly perform”

Impossibility not only means physical impossibility; it also means legal impossibility. If there is no possibility of performance of the contract, because it will be unlawful to do that, the agreement is void. Such cases fall under section 23 which declares that every agreement which object is unlawful is void.

For example, A promises to obtain for B employment in public service and B promises to pay 1000 rupees to A. Consideration is unlawful agreement becomes void.

Section 56(para 3) “Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or with reasonable diligence, might have known and which the promisee did not know to be impossible or unlawful. Such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any loss with such promisee sustained through the non-performance of promise.”

For example, if a married man knowing that he cannot marry again, promises to do so, he is bound to compensate the other party for the breach of promise.

2. Subsequent impossibility

The performance of a contract may become impossible or illegal after it is entered into due to an unforeseeable event.

Section 56(para 2) “A contract to an act which, after the contract is made, become impossible, or by reason of some event, which the promisor could not prevent an unlawful, become void when the act to become impossible or unlawful.”

It refers to the fact that every contract is based on the assumption that the parties to the contract will be able to perform the same when the due date of performance arrives. if because of some event the performance has either become impossible or unlawful, the content becomes Void.

Example: A and B contact to marry each other before the time is fixed for marriage. A goes mad. The contract becomes void.

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India[11], Promisor Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi entered into a contract with Union of India for the supply of 8,420 milk containers of 20 litres each duly coated with “hot dip coating” The parties’ well knew that such coating has to be made tin ingots, which was canalized item, not available in the market without a release order of director general of supplies and Disposal. Despite reasonable efforts on the part of petitioners to obtain the release of the necessary quota of tin ingots, the same was not done. It was held that the performance of the contract became impossible due to the non-availability of the tin ingots and the contract became void due to the impossibility of performance, and the promisor could not be made liable to pay damages for the breach of contract.

Doctrine of Frustration

The performance of the contract becomes impossible, and the purpose which the parties have in mind is frustrated. If the performance becomes impossible because of a supervening, event, the promisor is excused from the performance of the contract. This is known as the doctrine of frustration Covered in section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

The basis of the doctrine of frustration was explained by Justice Mukharjea in the supreme court decision of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram[12], The idea upon which the doctrine of frustration is based on that impossibility of performance of the contract in fact, impossibility and frustration are often used as interchangeable expression. The change in circumstances makes the performance of the contract impossible and the parties are absolved from the further performance of it as they did not promise to perform an impossibility. The doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge, of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the contract agreed to do, done, and hence come within the preview of the contract act.

In Taylor v. Caldwell[13], A agree with B to give him the use of Music Hall and Gardens for holding concerts on four different dates. B agree to pay rent of 100 euros for each of the four days. Before the date of the performance arrived, the music hall was destroying a fire. B sued A for breach of contract. it was held that the contract had become void because of the perishing of the hall without any fault on the part of A.
The performance of the contract became impossible, and therefore A was not liable for the non-performance of the contract.

In Alluri Narayana Murthy Raju v. District Collector, Vishakhapatnam[14], The petitioner under the contract were granted leasehold rights for lifting the sand in the river in Maddi Gram panchayat of Visakhapatnam district. The resident of the village prevented him from carrying on query operation on the ground that would lead to depletion of groundwater affecting the irrigation channels. The villagers were undeterred even by the registration of criminal cases against them, and also by grant of injunction by civil court. The conclusion, inevitable from the uncontroverted facts was that on account of events that had taken place subsequent to entering into the contract, which were beyond the control of the parties to the contract, rendering the performance of the contract impossible. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the second limb of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was squarely attracted, and therefore the doctrine of frustration envisaged by the said provision was applied to all fours of the contract.

Grounds of frustration

Death or incapacity of the party

When the nature of contracts requires personal performance of the contract by a particular person, the contract is deemed to condition upon the continued life of gold health of the person, so that it is possible for him to perform the contract Thus, the contract is based on a personal skill or confidence of the parties, the death of parties in such case put an end of the contract, and therefore the representative cannot be made liable to perform such account.

In Robinson v. Davison[15], The defendant’s wife, who was an eminent piano player, promised to play piano at a concert on a particular day. She was unable to give her performance due to illness. It was held that the performance of the contract depended on the continued good health of the defendant’s wife and the contract was discharged due to her illness. The defendant could not be liable to pay compensation for the non-performance of the contract.

Due to change in circumstances

The doctrine of Frustration has been extended to those cases where there was no physical impossibility of performance of the contract, but because of the change in circumstances, the adventure was frustrated, or by the literal performance of the contract, the main object of the contract could not be fulfilled.

Krell v. Henry[16] In this case the defendant agrees to hire the plaintiff’s flat for June 26 and 27, 1902, the days on which the coronation possession of Edward vii was to pass along a particular route. The defendant’s purpose for hiring the flat on a specified date was to have a view of the coronation procession. The defendant paid some amount by way of rent in advance, and the promise to pay the balance subsequently. Due to the king’s illness, the procession was, cancelled. On the defendant’s refusal to pay the balance of the agreed rent, the plaintiff Sued for the same. It was observed that viewing the procession was the foundation of the contract and by the cancellation of the procession, The purpose of the conduct could no longer be achieved, and such, parties were discharged from performing their further obligations. Consequently, the plaintiff was held not entitled to recover the balance of the agreed rent.

Intervention of statutory authority

After the formation of a contract can be frustrated if at the time of entering performance was possible or lawful. But after entering due to some statutory authority intervention contract becomes impossible or Unlawful. In many cases parties entering into contract When they are entering into contract is lawful, but when entering into the contract, government make a policy or law that makes contract unlawful and due to the unlawful, contract becomes frustrated or impossibility of performance.

In Man Singh v. Khazan Singh[17], where parties agreed to sale of tree of a certain forest, and the government of Rajasthan pass an order which forbid the cutting of trees in that area. The contract held frustrated, and it became unlawful, subsequent to entering into a contract owning to the government order.

Destruction of Subject-matter

The subject matter of the contract is a thing without which a contract cannot be performed. This is the straightforward head under the frustration. The doctrine of frustration applies with full force when the actual subject matter of the contract has ceased to exist.

In Taylor v. Caldwell, A agree with B to give him the use of Music Hall and Gardens for holding concerts on four different dates. B agree to pay rent of 100 euros for each of the four days. Before the date of the performance arrived, the music hall was destroying a fire. B sued A for breach of contract. it was held that the contract had become void, because of the perishing of the hall without any fault in the part of A. The performance of the contract had become impossible. and therefore, A was not liable for the non-performance on the contract.

Position in India

In India impossibility does not mean merely physical impossibility to perform the contract, it also includes situations where the performance of the contract may not be literally impossible, but because of changes in circumstances, the performance will not fulfil the object which the parties had in mind.

Case Laws

In Arti Sukhdev Kashyap v. Daya Kishore Arora[18], It has been held at merely because performance has to be delayed. It doesn’t mean frustration of the contract. In this case, there was allotment of a plot by the development authority with the condition that permission for sale could not be granted before the expiry of 10 years. Permission for sale was requested earlier than that, and the same was refused as there were no exceptional circumstances for the same. It was held that since there was the possibility of a sale after 10 years, the contract had not been frustrated.

In Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh[19], It was again pointed out that it was incorrect to say that section 56 of the Indian Contract Act applied to the case of physical impossibility only in its view. Section 56 covers those cases also where the performance becomes impracticable or useless, having regard to the object and purpose of the contract.

Fact of the case, A agreed to give Har land to B on lease for a period of three years under the agreement, the lease B was personally responsible for taking possession of the land. The land was situated in Gujranwalla. On the partition of the country on 15 August 1947, Tehsil Gujranwalla went to Pakistan, and both A and B migrated to India. B could not take possession of the land. B had deposited 34,000 with An as a Security of rent. He sued A to recover back this amount plus RS 2000 as damage on the ground agreement to lease had become Frustrated as because of changing circumstances, it was no longer possible for B either to obtain possession of land himself or to go to Pakistan and collect the rant from cultivators. The plaintiff’s, contention was upheld, and it was held that because of the supervision event, the agreement to lease, had become impossible to perform.

Conclusion

However, Performance of contract is crucial of contractual agreement outline the responsibility of both parties to perform and offer to performance. The impossibility of contract explores the initial impossibility contract impossible or unlawful from beginning, and in subsequent impossibility contract valid in starting but entering into contract become unlawful or impossible. contract is based on personal skill or confidence may not be enforceable against the representative of deceased party. performance contract by promisor or through an agent, clarifying that if the contract is based on the personal performance of promisor, then it must be fulfilled personally otherwise contract becomes impossible to perform. Section 40 and 41 deal with it. The discussion of impossibility of performance explores initial impossibility and subsequent impossibility, with examples illustrating how unforeseen events or changes in circumstance render a contract void under section 56. The doctrine of restriction covered in section 56, excuses the promisor from performance when the purpose of the contract is frustrated due to supervening impossibility or illegality. Grounds of frustration include death incapacity of the party, change in circumstances, the intervention of statutory authority, and destruction of subject matter. Understanding the performance of the contract, the Impossibility of performance, and the doctrine of frustration is essential for parties entering into a contractual agreement, ensuring compliance with legal principles and facilitating fair and equitable resolution.

References

Performance of Contract, The Indian Contract act, 1872, page no. 21 to 24, Bare act.
Impossibility of Performance, The Indian Contract act, 1872, page no. 27, Bare act.
Doctrine of frustration, The Indian Contract act, 1872, page no. 27, Bare act.
Dr. R.K. Bangia, Indian Contract Act,224, 2017.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/offer-of-performance/ visited on 04/01/2024
https://blog.ipleaders.in/impossibility-performance-frustration-contract/ visited on 04/01/2024
Mulla, Contract act, page no. 151, 15^th edition.

[1] Indian Contract Act 1872, Definition sec 37, Obligation of parties to contract, P 21.

[2] Indian Contract Act 1872, Definition, P 21.

[3] AIR 1967, 293, S.S. Dhavan J.

[4] Sec 38, 1843, Indian Contract Act 1872, 6 Mann & G 593 : 64 R.R. 810.

[5] (1949) 1 All. E.R. 435.

[6] Illustration to Section 37.

[7] Person by whom promise is to be performed (Definition), Section 40.

[8] Definition of Section 41, Indian Contract Act 1872.

[9] AIR 1973 Raj. 39.

[10] Section 56, Para 1.

[11] A.I.R. 1986, Delhi 158.

[12] A.I.R. 1954, S.C. 47.

[13] 1863, 3 B & S, 826; 129 R.R. 573.

[14] A.I.R. 2008, A.P. 264.

[15] A.I.R. 1871.

[16] (1903) 2 KB 740 72 LJKB 794; 52 WR 246; [1900-3] All ER Rep 20; LT 328; 19 TLR 711.

[17] A.I.R. 1961, RAJ277.

[18] 1992(24), DRJ 285, 1992 RLR 442.

[19] (1971) A.I.R. 1756, 1971 SCR 671, A.I.R. 1971 SC 1756.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.