Compensation for losses due to non-performance of an action known to be impossible or illegal: if a person promised to be something he knew or could have known with due diligence, and which the promisor did not know was impossible or illegal, that promisor must compensate that promise for any loss, which that promiser suffers by not fulfilling the promise. • Article 19 focuses heavily on how the party loses the right of withdrawal (by confirmation, at the end of the period, interference with the rights of third parties. In addition, Articles 64 and 66 inform us of the nature of the communication and the consequences of terminating a questionable contract.• Article 26 guarantees to any person, with the exception of minors, that no agreement can be reached to restrict marriages. And if this is done, article 56 guarantees that the injured party receives the compensation due to him. In addition to stipulating that agreements on the impossible are null and void, Article 56 has also focused on compensation for frustration or economic difficulties encountered by the injured party.• Article 27 guarantees fair competition in commerce.• Article 64 R.w Articles 17 and 19 provided for the restoration of an advantage acquired by the party to which the party was addressed before the termination of the contract. Article 65, as well as the sections above, also focus on the same thing. Article 75 stipulates that legal withdrawal also gives the right to damages. ConclusionThe Indian Treaties Act defines contestability in its final scope and is well suited to protect the rights and interests of individuals on a large scale. It is formulated in such a way that it can fulfil all the obligations of both parties.

Although India`s contract law was designed to promote and maintain contractual ties between the parties, it is crucial to limit contracts and arrangements that will hurt the general public. Article 27 stipulates that agreements that prevent a person from exercising his or her legal profession, business or trade, etc., are countervailable agreements. Here, however, the exception states that if the person has sold the goodwill, it may be ordered not to operate his business. According to the Black Law Dictionary, an agreement1 is an agreement of understanding and intent between two or more parties regarding the impact of certain past or future facts or services on their respective rights and obligations. The doctrine of frustration arises because action is impossible. In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangura & Co & Anr[1], the term “impossible” was found not to have been used in section 56 of the Act. It may not be literally impossible to accomplish an action, but it can be impractical and unnecessary, and if an adverse event or change in circumstances completely disrupts the basis on which the parties have negotiated, it is very likely that the promising party will find it impossible to do the act it promised.

So if the object of the contract is lost, the contract becomes frustrated. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v Century Spg & Mfg Co LtdThe complainant worked as an intern in the tire cord wire production unit. The agreement was valid for a period of 5 years and it was stipulated that the complainant would not be active in any other field during that period and would maintain secrecy with regard to the technical parts of his work. However, at the end of his training, the complainant joined the competing company which had the same activity of producing tyre cord wire. The complainant was employed in the new company for a higher salary of Rs 560 per month than he received from the defendant company. In addition to the action, the defendant company also claimed Rs 2410 as damages. Article 17 of the cartel prevented the appellant from disclosing data, tools, records, reports, exclusive benefits, manufacturing measures, etc. to other companies involved in the production of tyre bead wires. The complainant argued that the agreement was inappropriate, strict and enforced under duress and examined its legality on the ground that it was contrary to public policy. He replied that article 17 prevented him from serving in any way elsewhere, that it was a direct implementation of the deprivation of his right to trade or do business, and that such a clause was superfluous to protect the defendant`s obligations to the business.

The court later ruled that the application of the obligation to employees to protect trade secrets does not mean that there has been a restriction of the profession. It is clear that it does not fall within the scope of section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act. The decision in favour of the respondent company and therefore the appellant`s appeal failed. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 contains a set of laws that characterize the manner in which contracts and agreements are conducted between two or more parties. Section 19A of the Indian Contracts Act states: “If consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract that may be cancelled at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.” An agreement to perform an act that is impossible in itself is null and void. A questionable contract is an agreement that is not enforceable by law. It becomes invalid for many legal reasons such as fraud, error, misrepresentation, etc. According to the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a proposal is made when a person shows his willingness to do or abstain from any type of work, he should make a proposal. If the person to whom the proposal is made gives consent, the proposal is accepted and converted into a promise.

Every promise that is in exchange for each other ultimately leads to an agreement. Thereafter, each agreement in its final analysis is the result of a proposal by one party and its adoption by the other. They are made for legal review and for legal purposes. If a complete contract becomes impossible through no fault of either party, the contract is prima facie dissolved by the doctrine of frustration. By fulfilling the following conditions, the doctrine of frustration can be established: Section 20 of the Indian Contracts Act states that “if both parties accidentally enter into a contract, the contract is voidable”. However, according to Article 21, the applicable law cannot be regarded as an error. Article 22 stipulates that if only one of the parties has made a mistake in a fact, the contract shall not be considered voidable. Article 23 stipulates that any consideration or object of an agreement is lawful until prohibited by law. And the extension of Article 23, Article 24 stipulates that if a contract contains an illegal consideration, the agreement will be considered null and void. The Contracts Act in India is governed by the Indian Contract Act 1872.

However, the Contracts Act does not purport to codify all contract law, the Law also expressly preserves any use or habit of commerce or incident of a contract that is not incompatible with the provisions of the Law. Contract law is limited to the performance of civil law obligations created voluntarily. Contract law is not able to take over all agreements, many agreements remain outside the scope because they do not meet the requirement of a contract. A contract is an agreement; an agreement is a promise and a promise is an accepted proposal. Thus, each agreement is the result of a proposal by one party and its adoption by the other. An agreement is considered a contract if it is legally enforceable. Section 10 of the Act deals with the conditions of applicability, according to this section, an agreement is a contract if it is entered into with the free consent and for a lawful purpose in return between the parties responsible for a contract. .