The doctrine of frustration and the doctrine of force majeure in Indian law enforcement practice in the digital era

The article delves into the comparative legal analysis of the doctrines of force majeure and frustration in Indian legislation, which are the most relevant in contemporary scenarios. The objective is to examine the legal essence of these concepts, identify similarities and differences, and outline the characteristics of circumstances leading to contract impossibility and constituting force majeure events. Through a review of Indian legislation and judicial precedents, the article seeks to explore the application scope of these doctrines, including in the context of digitalization and the rise of electronic document management. The employed methods include theoretical approaches such as formal and dialectical logic, comparative-legal logic, interpretation, and description. Specific scientific methods comprise juridical-dogmatic analysis and the interpretation of legal norms. The results highlight that in Indian law, the doctrine of force majeure is invoked in the presence of a specified «force majeure event» outlined in the contract, while «impossibility» encompasses other unforeseen circumstances not covered by the force majeure clause. Notably, in Indian practice, «impossibility» is construed as «impracticability» not solely as literal physical «impossibility». In conclusion, a key distinction between frustration and force majeure lies in the event’s impact on the contract. Nevertheless, despite these distinctions, both legal institutions share a common objective of mitigating potential losses for contractual parties when unforeseen circumstances impede the fulfillment of obligation.