An agreement to do an impossible act in itself is a null and void. Contract, impossible or illegal to act after the fact: a contract of an act that becomes impossible after the conclusion of the contract or which, because of an event that the promiseor could not prevent, becomes illegal if the act becomes impossible or illegal1. it could not have been avoided or overcome with its effects, it will be excused by non-compliance. If the obstacle is temporary, the excuse is maintained for an appropriate period during which the performance of the contract is compromised. It must be informed of the obstruction and its effects on its ability to present to the other party, otherwise the damage caused by the non-receipt disclosure could be made liable. 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. 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. The impossibility of section 56 of the law is not limited to something that is not humanly possible, as in the case of Sushila Devi vs.
Hari Singh. [2] The Court of Justice found that if the performance of the contract becomes unenforceable or unnecessary given the purpose and purpose of the parties, the performance of the contract became impossible.