Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement to accomplish an impossible action is not has been concluded. If a complete contract becomes impossible on either side without fault, the contract is excellent fine by the doctrine of frustration. If the following conditions are met, the doctrine of frustration can be established: d) A contracts to receive cargo for B in a foreign port. The government then declares war against the country in which the port is located. The treaty will be annulled if war is declared. Frustration means a number of circumstances that occur after the contract is concluded, the arrival of which is not due to the fault of a party and which physically and economically prevents one or more parties from executing the contract. (a) A agrees with B to magically discover treasures. The agreement is not done. «if, for the most part, the whole contract becomes inoperable or, in other words, for some reason, for which neither was responsible, becomes unenforceable.» An agreement to do an impossible act in itself is a nullig part.

e) a six-month participation contract in a theatre for a sum paid by B. Many times, A is too ill to act. The treaty to act on these occasions is extinguished. The theory of frustration is born because an action is impossible. For Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangura – Co-Anr[1], the «impossible» section 56 of the law was not used. It may be literally impossible to accomplish an action, but it may be unenforceable and unnecessary, and if an adverse event or change in circumstances completely disrupts the foundations on which the parties negotiated, it is very likely that the promising party will find it impossible to do the act it promised. Therefore, if the object of the contract is lost, the contract is frustrated. The courts explain the frustration of the contract on the basis of the subsequent impossibility when they find that the entire purpose or basis of the agreement was foiled by a burglary or incident or a change in circumstances that goes beyond what the parties attempted to do at the time of the agreement. Changing circumstances make it impossible to enforce this treaty and, as they have not promised to exercise their power, they are exempt from further enforcement.

If a person promised to be something that he knew or knew carefully and whose promise gave did not know that it was impossible or illegal, he must pay such compensation for any loss that such a promise would suffer if the undertaking was not met. «Force majeure» was subject to the Indian Contract Act of 1872. The Supreme Court stated: «In the event of a force majeure event, the contract is dealt with by a rule of law under section 56 of the treaty.