Although the work of the law is to promote and maintain contractual relations between the parties, it is important to limit treaties that, if implemented, must suffer, which is not the purpose of the legislation. Just as Parliament cannot deprive any individual of the right to practise a profession, no individual can deprive himself of it by means of an agreement. The fundamental principle of the law is that every human being has the freedom to work for his self-realization, and no treaty deprives him of his right and freedom to work for himself.  The Supreme Court of India has ruled that this doctrine would be applicable in both types of frustration. In the case of Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur, the court stated that „… the execution of an action may not be literally impossible, but it may be unenforceable and unnecessary in terms of the purpose and purpose that the parties had in mind, and if the unforeseen event of the circumstances completely upsets the foundations on which the parties based their negotiations, then it is safe to say that the Promisor finds the act it has promised to do impossible. Agreements that do not currently exist but are concluded are also legally undying, unless all points of the agreement are actually agreed. For example, if X agrees to purchase Y grapefruit at a market value price on Date C, the market value can be determined on Date C. However, an agreement for X to buy some kind of Y fruit at a price to be determined at one time or another would be both uncertain and complete in the future and therefore invalid. As we know, contractual agreements are made to carry out certain obligations of interest to both parties. And to implement the same thing, the Indian Contract Act was developed so that different forms of contract could be legally recognized, so that the parties could appeal to the courts in the event of an infringement.
The terms „void“ and „voidable“ are often used interchangeably, but are of a completely different nature. While a non-contract contract is totally unenforceable by law, a cancelled contract is a valid contract. However, the terms of a cancelled contract provide that one or both parties entering into the contract have the option of cancelling the contract at any time. While a non-negotiable contract is often considered non-binding, a contract may be considered inconclusive if the agreement is applicable, but the circumstances surrounding the agreement are questionable. These include agreements reached where a party has withheld information or has voluntarily provided inaccurate information. If items are not disclosed, as required by law, or if information is misrepreserated, the contract may be cancelled, but does not automatically invalidate it. In cases where one party may withdraw from the contract due to the illegal or (no) acts of the other party, the contract or agreement expires. In this section, it is stated that if the consideration or objective of the contract is totally or partially illegal, the agreement must be considered inconclusive.