The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines thiRead more
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines this principle to the effect of saying that ‘every contract to do an impossible act is void’. The contract becomes frustrated when there is an event that has the affect of making the purpose of the contract impossible, unlawful or totally unexpected by both the parties to the contract.
The most famous of these are the Indian case Of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954). In this case, the role of Supreme court referred to the decision making under the rule of frustration that Say the contract becomes frustrated where there is a condition that went to the root of the contract and made its performance impossible. In the case, it is shown that the building land contract was interrupted due to the governmental orders during the Second World War. That is why the Courts ruled that due to the war related restriction the parties were unable to perform their obligations under the contract and thus, the contract was frustrated.
Disaffection cannot be recorded where the issue of the challenge in performance is temporal or where the event was anticipated. It is also not allowed where the contract has provided for how particular incidences should be handled in as much as they are contingencies.
See less
The Indian Divorce Act of 1869 was initially passed for the purpose of governing Christian marriages, though over the years it became lumme to other people of other religious beliefs who converted to Christianity. However, one must recognize certain problems rise regarding its admissibility in curreRead more
The Indian Divorce Act of 1869 was initially passed for the purpose of governing Christian marriages, though over the years it became lumme to other people of other religious beliefs who converted to Christianity. However, one must recognize certain problems rise regarding its admissibility in current family structures and religious cross-corporation marriage.
Application of the Act to Modern Family Dynamics:
Mutual Consent Divorce: To suite modern society, the Act has been amended and sections added that deals with divorce through consent of both parties involved.
-Grounds for Divorce: According to the Act the grounds for divorce include adultery, cruelty, desertion, and unsound mind and these can be incorporate into the present scenario.
-Custody and Maintenance: This act provides for the care, upbringing and support of children and spouse with reference to the welfare of the child and income earning ability of both parties.
Handling Cross-Religious Marriages:
-Limited Applicability: However, the Act can only operate in cross religious marriage where either of the party or both are Christians, it may then be weak in other religions.
-Personal Laws: If one or both of them are not Christian the party may apply their respective individual laws allowing the dissolution of marriage, which can create confusion and probably conflict.
-Uniform Civil Code: Remove multiplicity of laws by implementing a law that upholds a single law for all that will apply to all religions. The issues resulting from cross-religious marriage might be addressed and a better solution can be proposed.
Even if some of the complications resulting out of the present day kinship system and inter-religious marriages have been addressed through Indian Divorce Act, the process of reform covers a long path to go to match up to the contemporary requirement. The thought a Uniform Civil Code may be having a superior proposition to handle the problem of marital disputes in the country.
See less