The Enforcement of Contract Law
- BC ARYAN
- May 12, 2023
- 6 min read
Written by BC ARYAN, Student
Introduction
Contracts are a common part of our daily lives, especially for people who work in the business sector. To legally bind and obligate another party to carry out the agreed-upon work is the primary objective of a formal, legal contract. A legally binding risk is imposed on the party who fails to carry out the agreement as a result of this presentation. To determine this issue, the Law of Agreement, or to be precise, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 sets out the central epitome of an understanding and makes sense of the honors and liabilities which tie a party once they go into an arrangement between themselves.
When two parties enter into a contract, it must be carried out, which means that the work or thing for which the contract was made must be completed. If the performing party did not carry out the terms of the agreement, there would be a breach of the contract. The defaulting party would be obligated to reimburse the breaching party for any losses it caused in this scenario. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 discusses the non-performance of contracts in two of its sections, Section 56 (Impossibility to perform the contract after its execution) and Section 32 (Contingent contract).
In this context, the situation in which a contract cannot be carried out as a result of unusual circumstances has been referred to as "force majeure." To momentarily examine force majeure, not at all like adjoining China and France, India doesn't have a legal regulation tending to drive majeure. Article 7.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts defines Force Majeure as " the party proves that the non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences." The force majeure clause in a contract is a bilateral agreement between the parties, and it is essentially civil law. The arrangements of disappointment of agreement provision are applied in the event that an agreement contains a power majeure statement. This power majeure stipulation is essentially applied in the event of war, fiasco, plague, or disaster, and generally, in all power majeure conditions, there is a suspension of understanding during the power majeure situation. One of the most common issues that could arise in the event of force majeure is the payment for the contract. To be clear, a contract's due payment will not be delayed even if performance is halted due to force majeure.
Coronavirus and Contractual Commitment Implementation
Throughout the pandemic, every sector of the economy has experienced a significant mishap with respect to commitments—both their completion and execution—arising from agreements. There are normally two gatherings engaged with the most common way of playing out an agreement: one who pays the money when it is due and receives the money when the assigned work is successfully completed. Sec. "An agreement to do a demonstration that, after the agreement is made, becomes incomprehensible, or, by reason of some occasion which the promisor couldn't forestall, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes unthinkable or unlawful," states section 56 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. As a result, the primary foundation of the section is the word "impossibility." It is evident from a straightforward reading of the section that the current pandemic situation may be related to this section and may also be cited in relation to our contractual obligations. In any case, an agreement's power majeure statements don't pardon gatherings' finished non-execution; rather, they only put it on hold for the time the force majeure lasts. Subsequently, this by itself recommends that there may not be a finished end of the power majeure proviso; on the other hand, the understanding might be briefly suspended or ended because of the presence of the power majeure proviso. Steel was being imported into the country in a new case called Standard Retail v. G.S. Global Corp., and it was determined that steel, as a fundamental product, must be kept out of the scope of the pertinence of power majeure proviso. The Bombay High Court's single bench has made it clear that force majeure will not be considered in that particular instance because it is a private contract. It is critical to take note that the Indian government proclaimed the Coronavirus pandemic to be a power majeure occasion for the presentation of agreements in February 2020. However, the government's definition of a force majeure event did not include private commercial contracts. All things considered, that's what it expressed "Covid ought to be considered as an instance of regular disaster, and power majeure might be conjured, any place thought about suitable, following the due strategy" and that "a power majeure proviso doesn't pardon a party's The organization is expected to give notice of power majeure when it happens, and it can't be guaranteed ex post facto. " If the performance of any obligation under the contract is prevented or delayed for more than ninety days due to force majeure, either party may terminate the contract at its discretion without incurring any financial penalties.
However, if the contract's performance cannot be excused by placing it under the purview of force majeure, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, which discusses the doctrine of frustration, can still be used to absolve it. However, there is a subtle distinction to be made between the frustration doctrine and force majeure. A force majeure clause in a contract lists all of these occurrences, whose occurrence will temporarily prevent the contract from being performed, and one of them applies even if the contract does not mention any such unlikely occurrence.
We already know how the nationwide lockdown has disrupted business in every sector when it comes to the effect that the Covid-19 pandemic is having on the enforcement of contractual obligations. This was evident from the GDP report that came out every quarter. As a result, it should not come as a surprise if more cases involve contractual rights being enforced in an effort to circumvent the force majeure clause. The parties could look to implement the convention of dissatisfaction under Section 56 of the demonstration without a power majeure statement. It could also be a test under the constant eye of the court and the council to decide if the current situation qualifies for a temporary suspension of execution of the agreement by summoning the power majeure proviso or for declaring the entire agreement null and void under Section 56.
Future Gathering pursued the choice to sell its retail, discount, planned operations, and warehousing resources for Dependence Retail for around 27 Cr last month. All of the major Future Group businesses were to be combined to form Future Enterprises. Future Enterprises would sell its wholesale and retail businesses to Reliance Retail and Fashion Lifestyle through a slump sale.
It is crucial to note that in 2019, Amazon.com NV Venture Possessions gained a 49 percent stake in Later Coupons, a Future Retail advertiser bunch element. Furthermore, Amazon was given a call choice that permitted it to obtain all or a part of the advertisers' stake in Future Retail. Shareholder agreements were also signed by Future Coupons and Future Retail. This financial backers' comprehension referred to that prior support of Future Coupons is normal on unambiguous issues, for instance, "move or grant of all or significantly every one of the assets of Future Retail, or material assets, a move of assets over a particular cutoff to an associated party, change of articles of relationship in battle with the terms of SHA or any issuance of the proposition capital in renouncement of the SHA."
The contract specifically stated, according to Amazon Retail, that Future Group could not sell any assets within ten years of the agreement, and even if they did, the e-commerce company would have first right to them. Future Group is now being accused by Amazon of breaking its contractual obligations in violation of this shareholders' agreement. The retail conglomerate has also asserted that a list of businesses with which Future Group cannot enter into a transaction was included in the shareholders' agreement. However, that clause has also been ignored by the retail company led by Kishore Biyani. Future Group, on the other hand, asserts that they approached e-commerce but rejected it vehemently and signed an agreement with Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries Limited. In addition to sending a legal notice, Amazon has started an arbitration process before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), which has its discretionary seat in Singapore, on October 7, 2020.
It has been established that Future Gathering intends to settle the dispute in an agreeable manner, either through assertion or intervention. Other market members and merchants have been conjecturing that the proposed bargain between Future Gathering and Dependence Ventures Restricted may bring about an imposing business model for Dependence Enterprises, which would, at last, establish an enemy of a cutthroat climate in the country. However, the arrangement is still in its very early stages of evaluation due to the fact that, in addition to the mediation that was initiated by Amazon, it still has the consent of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and creditors and minority investors.
Comments