If the performance of a contract depends on the absence of that event, it becomes impossible. If such circumstances, which show that the event can no longer occur, can only be required to carry out the contract. The example attached to the section clearly illustrates the meaning of the section. The probability of uncertainty, which will ensure that the calculation of results is estimated if the event does not occur, relates to potential contracts when measuring the potential impact on its consequences. Contracting parties may anticipate that the performance of contractual obligations is contingent on an eventuality, even if the contract is valid. Parties who agree with the terms agree that the fees will be applied and that, therefore, the commitments will be due because of the possibility when the contract is awarded. b) A agrees to pay 1000 rupees of B if the daughter C of B A marries. It was dead at the time of the agreement. The agreement is not done. Their event, on which the performance of the contract depends, should not be part of the contract review.
For example, X contracts to pay 100,000 rupees to Y if Y house is destroyed by fire, considering Y pay 400 rupees per month. The consideration for X`s promise to pay 100,000 rupees is the payment of Y, 400 rupees per month. The obligation to pay 100,000 rupees will only be enforceable if there is uncertainty about the destruction of Y`s house by fire, which is independent of the counterpart and security of the treaty. [viii] The situation would be different if the goods were already delivered, and the only thing the contract says is that the buyer must pay if he is able to pay. It is not a quota agreement. The obligation to pay has already been born. Payment after authorization was merely a personal concession, and it would have been an abuse of that concession to extend the payment for an inopportune period. The doctrine of frustration or impossibility of performance can be discussed here, but in India, the principles and theories associated with it are not applicable. [xix] In satyabrata vs.
Mugneeram[xx], the defendant company has put in place an integral part of a plan to develop a large area of land. It entered into a contract with the applicant`s predecessor for the sale of land to the applicant and considered that a small amount of money was serious. It committed to build roads and exits, and the extraction was to be completed shortly after the completion of the tiling roads, with the payment of the balance of the price. Since a significant portion of the plan`s area was used by the government for military purposes in 1941, the company wrote to the defendant that road construction could not be used indefinitely and asked him to consider the agreement as void and to recover it.