by Joint Promisors:
In contract law, the term joint promisors refers to two or more persons who together make a promise to another party. When several people jointly agree to do something under a contract, they are collectively called joint promisors, and the person to whom the promise is made is called the promisee. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when a promise is made jointly, each of the promisors is individually as well as collectively liable to fulfill the obligation. This means the promisee has the right to demand full performance from any one or all of the joint promisors.
For example, if A, B, and C jointly promise to pay ₹30,000 to D, D can demand the full amount from A, or B, or C, or all three. It is the internal arrangement between A, B, and C to share the burden equally, but as far as D is concerned, each of them is liable for the entire debt. This rule ensures that the promisee is protected and does not suffer any loss due to disputes or defaults among the promisors.
Legal Provisions for Joint Promisors:
- Meaning and Scope
The legal provisions for joint promisors are primarily covered under Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Joint promisors refer to two or more persons who make a promise jointly to another party, called the promisee. The law ensures that the promisee’s rights are protected by holding each joint promisor liable for the whole promise. This means the promisee can enforce the contract against any or all of the joint promisors, and they remain equally liable to perform or compensate. The arrangement ensures fairness, responsibility, and certainty in multi-party contractual obligations.
- Liability of Joint Promisors
According to Section 43, when two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may compel any one or more of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise. This provision protects the promisee from losses if some promisors fail to perform. The liability among joint promisors is both joint and several, meaning each promisor is individually responsible for the entire obligation. The promisee has the choice to sue one or more promisors, without being required to sue all. This strengthens the promisee’s legal position in enforcing the contract.
- Right of Contribution
If one joint promisor has to fulfill the entire obligation, Section 43 also gives him the right to claim a contribution from the other joint promisors. This internal right balances fairness among the promisors. For example, if A, B, and C jointly owe ₹90,000 to D, and A pays the full amount, A can recover ₹30,000 each from B and C. However, if one of the joint promisors is unable to pay, the shortfall is shared equally among the remaining ones. This provision ensures fair distribution of burden among joint promisors.
- Release of One Promisor
Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the effect of releasing one joint promisor. If the promisee releases one of the joint promisors from liability, it does not discharge the other joint promisors. The remaining promisors are still liable for the whole debt or obligation. For example, if A, B, and C jointly promise to pay D, and D releases C, A and B are still fully liable to D. However, C is released only from the promisee, not from his internal contribution liability toward A and B.
- Devolution of Joint Liabilities
If any of the joint promisors die, their legal representatives are bound to fulfill the deceased’s share of the joint obligation. This ensures that the liability does not dissolve on the death of a promisor. However, the legal representatives are only liable to the extent of the deceased’s estate and not personally beyond that. Similarly, if the promisee dies, the right to demand performance passes on to the promisee’s legal representatives. This preserves the enforceability and continuity of the contract despite changes in the parties’ personal circumstances.
- Joint Promisors vs. Co-promisors
It’s important to distinguish joint promisors from co-promisors. Joint promisors are bound by one unified promise, whereas co-promisors may be bound by separate promises. In the case of joint promises, the liability is collective, and the promisee can sue any or all for the entire performance. In contrast, with separate promises, each co-promisor is only liable for his own part. This distinction affects how obligations and liabilities are enforced in legal proceedings. Understanding this helps in determining the exact scope of contractual obligations among multiple parties.
- Judicial Interpretation
Indian courts have consistently upheld the principles laid down in Sections 43 and 44, emphasizing the promisee’s right to recover full performance from any joint promisor. Courts have also clarified that releasing one joint promisor does not absolve others, preserving the promisee’s remedies. Additionally, courts have reinforced that contribution rights among joint promisors are purely internal and separate from the promisee’s claims. These interpretations help in maintaining the balance of fairness and ensuring that the promisee’s rights are not compromised due to disputes among the promisors.
- Impossibility of Performance
The concept of impossibility of performance refers to situations where a contract becomes impossible to perform after it has been formed, due to unforeseen events or circumstances beyond the control of the parties. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, this is governed by Section 56, which states that a contract becomes void when its performance becomes impossible or unlawful. This doctrine is often called the doctrine of frustration.
Contracts are made with the assumption that the parties will perform their obligations. However, sometimes, due to events like natural disasters, war, government action, or the destruction of the subject matter, it becomes impossible for one or both parties to fulfill their promises. When this happens, the law excuses them from performance because it would be unjust to hold them liable for something they cannot control.
Types of Impossibility:
There are two main types of impossibility:
- Initial Impossibility
This exists when the contract was impossible to perform right from the start, even though the parties may not have known it. For example, if A agrees to sell B a piece of land that legally does not belong to A, the contract is void due to initial impossibility. According to Section 56, agreements to do impossible acts are void.
- Subsequent Impossibility (Supervening Impossibility)
This arises when the contract was valid and possible at the time of formation, but later events make its performance impossible or unlawful. For example, if A agrees to perform at a concert, but the venue burns down before the event, the contract becomes void due to supervening impossibility.
Examples of Impossibility
Some common examples include:
-
Death or incapacity of a party when personal performance is required (e.g., an artist or singer).
-
Destruction of the subject matter, such as goods lost in transit.
-
Government bans, prohibitions, or legal changes making the contract unlawful.
-
Outbreaks of war or pandemics making performance impossible or commercially impractical.
-
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, or fires destroying the basis of the contract.
Exceptions to Impossibility
Not all difficulties or hardships amount to legal impossibility. Courts have clarified that:
-
Mere commercial hardship or increased cost does not make performance impossible.
-
Self-induced impossibility, where one party makes it impossible through their own actions, is not excused.
-
Foreseeable risks assumed by the parties are not covered under this doctrine.
Thus, the impossibility must be absolute, unavoidable, and beyond the control of the parties.
Legal Position in India
The Indian Contract Act’s Section 56 lays down the general rule. Courts apply the principle strictly and look for genuine impossibility or frustration, not just inconvenience or difficulty. Landmark cases like Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954) have clarified that the test is whether the event strikes at the root of the contract, destroying its fundamental purpose.
In Indian law, the doctrine aims to balance fairness between the parties while respecting the sanctity of contracts. Contracts frustrated by impossibility are treated as void, releasing both parties from further obligations.
