Site navigation

Which proposition is incorrect about frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

Question and options

Which proposition is incorrect about frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

  1. Performance can become impossible in law without becoming physically impossible.

  2. A qualifying supervening event discharges the contract by operation of law.

  3. A promisor cannot invoke frustration arising from the promisor’s own voluntary election.

  4. Frustration under section 56 applies to rights under a completed transfer of a leasehold interest.

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: D - Frustration under section 56 applies to rights under a completed transfer of a leasehold interest.

Section 56 makes a contract void when a qualifying later event makes performance impossible or unlawful. Impossibility can include a change destroying the foundation of performance, and a promisor cannot rely on self-induced frustration. In Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh (1968), the Supreme Court held that frustration under section 56 does not apply to rights under a completed transfer of a leasehold interest.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Discharge, impossibility & frustration