SPPU Solved Question Papers
Law of Contract I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
Oct 2025 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Law of Contract I Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 6 November 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Oct 2025 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 30 Marks
Q1)Explain the Doctrine of Frustration with reference to relevant provisions and case laws.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the meaning of frustration; section 56 in its three paragraphs; the basis of the doctrine in India against England (Satyabrata Ghose, Taylor v. Caldwell); the grounds of frustration with the Act's illustrations; what does not frustrate a contract; frustration and section 32 (force majeure clauses); the effect, including restitution under section 65; and a short worked example.
Meaning
A contract is frustrated when, after it is made, an event that neither party caused makes its performance impossible or unlawful. It is also frustrated when such an event destroys the very purpose for which it was made. The law then releases both parties from further performance. Frustration is a mode of discharge of a contract.
In India the doctrine is part of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, headed "Agreement to do impossible act".
Section 56, paragraph by paragraph
- Initial impossibility. "An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void." Such an agreement never becomes a contract. In illustration (a), A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void.
- Supervening impossibility or illegality. "A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful." This paragraph is the doctrine of frustration.
- Compensation where the promisor knew. Sometimes a promisor knew, or with reasonable diligence might have known, that the act was impossible or unlawful, and the promisee did not know. The promisor must then make compensation to the promisee for any loss caused by the non-performance.
The basis of the doctrine: India and England
England: the implied term. The English doctrine began with Taylor v. Caldwell, (1863) 3 B & S 826. A music hall hired for a series of concerts burnt down before the first concert. The court excused both parties by implying a term that the contract was subject to the continued existence of the hall. On that view, the court asks what the parties would have agreed had they thought of the event.
India: a rule of positive law.
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., AIR 1954 SC 44. Facts: a company had agreed to sell plots of land in a development scheme. It had undertaken to build roads and drains before calling for the balance of the price. During the war, part of the land was requisitioned for military purposes. The company said the contract had become impossible and treated it as cancelled. Held:
- The doctrine of frustration is an aspect of the law of discharge by supervening impossibility or illegality, and it falls within section 56. In India it is a rule of positive law, not a matter of implied terms.
- "Impossible" is not confined to physical impossibility. An act becomes impossible when it becomes impracticable or useless from the point of view of the object and purpose of the contract.
- On the facts, the requisition was temporary, the contract set no time limit for the work, and the delay did not destroy its purpose. So the contract was not frustrated.
Why it matters: it settles that in India the court applies section 56 directly and does not ask what the parties might have intended. It also shows that a temporary obstacle does not frustrate a contract unless it defeats the contract's object.
The grounds of frustration
- Destruction of the subject matter. A hall, a ship or a factory without which the contract cannot be performed is destroyed without either party's fault. Taylor v. Caldwell is the classic example.
- Death or incapacity in a personal contract. Where the promisor alone was to perform, his death or serious illness ends the contract. In illustration (e) to section 56, A contracts to act at a theatre for six months. On several occasions A is too ill to act. The contract to act on those occasions becomes void.
- Change of law, or an event making the act unlawful. In illustration (d), A contracts to take in cargo for B at a foreign port. A's Government afterwards declares war against the country in which the port is situated. The contract becomes void when war is declared.
- Government or official action. Requisition of property, a ban on exports, or a prohibition order may frustrate a contract if it destroys its purpose for good. A temporary interference may not, as Satyabrata Ghose shows.
- Outbreak of war or similar intervention which makes performance with the enemy unlawful.
- Failure of the basic purpose. Sometimes both parties contracted for a purpose that can no longer be achieved. The contract may then be frustrated even though performance in a literal sense is possible.
What does not frustrate a contract
- Mere hardship or expense. A rise in prices, or performance becoming more costly or less profitable, is not frustration.
- Self-induced impossibility. A party cannot rely on an impossibility he caused himself, by his own act or choice.
- Events the parties foresaw and provided for. If the contract itself deals with the event, the contract governs.
- Strikes, lockouts and commercial difficulties, unless they truly destroy the foundation of the contract.
- Failure of one of several objects, where the main purpose can still be achieved.
Frustration and section 32: force majeure clauses
Section 32 deals with contracts contingent on an uncertain future event. If the contract is to be performed only if the event happens, it becomes void if the event becomes impossible.
The organising idea is simple. Where the parties have provided for the event, for example by a force majeure clause ("act of God, war, flood, epidemic"), the contract governs and section 32 applies. Section 56 is for events nobody provided for. So a force majeure clause ordinarily displaces section 56, and the court reads the clause to see what the parties agreed should happen.
The effect of frustration
- The contract becomes void at the moment the act becomes impossible or unlawful. It is not void from the beginning; what has already been done stays done.
- Both parties are discharged from further performance. Neither is liable for damages for non-performance, except the promisor who knew of the impossibility (third paragraph of section 56).
- Restitution under section 65. When a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under it must restore it, or make compensation for it. He must do so to the person from whom he received it. In illustration (d) to section 65, A contracts to sing for B at a concert for 1,000 rupees, which are paid in advance. A is too ill to sing. A is not bound to compensate B for the loss of profits, but must refund the 1,000 rupees.
A worked example
Ravi books a wedding hall for 10 December and pays an advance of Rs 50,000. On 1 December a fire, caused by an electrical fault in the hall's wiring, destroys the hall.
- Is the contract frustrated? Yes. The subject matter has been destroyed after the contract was made, without the fault of either party. Section 56, second paragraph, applies, as in Taylor v. Caldwell.
- Can Ravi claim damages? No, unless the owner knew of the risk and hid it. Neither party is in breach.
- Can Ravi get his money back? Yes. Under section 65 the owner must restore the advantage he received: the Rs 50,000.
- What if the contract had a force majeure clause keeping half the advance in case of fire? Then the clause governs, and section 56 gives way to what the parties agreed.
Conclusion. Frustration releases parties from a contract when an event after it is made makes performance impossible or unlawful, or destroys its purpose. The event must be one they did not cause and did not provide for. In India the doctrine rests on section 56, a rule of positive law, and "impossible" includes practical impossibility in view of the contract's object (Satyabrata Ghose). Hardship, self-induced impossibility and events the parties provided for are not enough. A frustrated contract becomes void from that moment, and benefits received are restored under section 65.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.