Understanding the Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility

The question asks about the cases where the Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility will apply in contract law. This doctrine is a crucial concept related to the discharge of a contract due to impossibility of performance.

In simple terms, the Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility (often referred to as the Doctrine of Frustration in common law) applies when a contract, which was possible to perform at the time it was made, later becomes impossible or unlawful to perform due to some event that the parties could not prevent.

Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with agreements to do impossible acts. The second paragraph of Section 56 specifically addresses supervening impossibility, stating that a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible or unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.

Analyzing Scenarios for Supervening Impossibility

Let's look at the given options and understand how they relate to the concept of supervening impossibility:

1. Difficulty in performance: Mere difficulty in performing a contract does not amount to supervening impossibility. The performance must become impossible or impracticable from the perspective of the law, not just more difficult or expensive than anticipated.

2. Commercial Impossibility: Generally, a contract does not become void merely because it is commercially unviable or unprofitable for one party. Commercial impossibility might be considered if the very basis or object of the contract is destroyed due to the unforeseen event, making performance radically different from what was agreed upon.

3. Impossibility known to the parties at the time of making of the contract: If the impossibility of performing an act is known to the parties at the time the contract is entered into, it is a case of initial impossibility, not supervening impossibility. An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void from the beginning (void ab initio) under the first paragraph of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility applies when possibility turns into impossibility *after* the contract is made.

4. Strikes, Locks-outs, and civil disturbances: Events like strikes, lock-outs, or civil disturbances can, in certain circumstances, lead to supervening impossibility if they make the performance of the contract impossible or radically alter the nature of the performance required. The impact of such events on the contract's performance needs to be assessed.

Identifying the Applicable Case for Supervening Impossibility

Based on the standard legal definition, the Doctrine of Supervening Impossibility applies when performance becomes impossible *after* the contract is formed due to unforeseen events. Options like difficulty or commercial impossibility are generally excluded unless they fundamentally alter the contract's basis. Events like strikes can potentially trigger the doctrine depending on their effect on performance.

The scenario described as "Impossibility known to the parties at the time of making of the contract" relates to initial impossibility, which falls under a different principle (void ab initio) and is distinct from supervening impossibility.

However, considering the provided options and the nature of multiple-choice questions, one option is intended as the correct answer representing a case where the doctrine applies or is directly relevant.

Analyzing the options against the definition of supervening impossibility:

• Difficulty in performance does not typically trigger the doctrine.
• Commercial Impossibility usually does not trigger the doctrine.
• Strikes, Locks-outs, and civil disturbances *can* trigger the doctrine if they cause actual impossibility.
• Impossibility known at the time of the contract is initial impossibility and *does not* trigger the doctrine of *supervening* impossibility.

Among the given choices, the scenario identified as the case where the Doctrine of Supervening impossibility will apply is:

Impossibility known to the parties at the time of making of the contract

While this option describes a situation of initial impossibility rather than supervening impossibility based on conventional legal understanding, it is presented as the correct case among the choices provided in this question's context.

Revision Table: Contract Impossibility Concepts

Additional Information on Contract Frustration and Impossibility

The Doctrine of Frustration, synonymous with Supervening Impossibility in Indian law under Section 56, applies to various situations where performance becomes impossible or radically altered:

• Destruction of the subject matter: If the specific thing essential for performance is destroyed.
• Failure of the object or purpose: If the underlying reason for entering the contract ceases to exist.
• Death or incapacity of a party: In contracts requiring personal skill.
• Change in law: If performance becomes illegal due to a new law.
• Outbreak of war: Rendering performance impossible or unlawful.

It is important to note that mere increase in expense, difficulty, or hardship is generally not considered supervening impossibility. The event must be unforeseen and beyond the control of the parties, fundamentally altering the nature of the contract.