«The first paragraph of the section defines the law in the same way as in England. He speaks of something that is inherently impossible and no one can obviously be invited to do such an act. Paragraph 2 refers to the contract enforcement law because of the impossibility or illegality of the agreed act. The wording of this paragraph is fairly general and, although the accompanying illustrations are not at all happy, they cannot deviate from the general terms used in the regulation. What is clear is that the word «impossible» was not used here in the sense of a physical or literal impossibility. The conduct of an action may not be literally impossible, but it may be unenforceable and unnecessary from the point of view of the purpose and purpose that the parties had in mind; And if an unpleasant event or a change in circumstances completely upsets the basis on which the parties based their negotiations, it can well be said that the Promisor found it impossible to do the act it had promised. 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 courts explain the frustration of the contract on the basis of the subsequent impossibility when they find that the entire purpose or basis of the agreement was foiled by a burglary or incident or a change in circumstances that goes beyond what the parties attempted to do at the time of the agreement. Changing circumstances make it impossible to enforce this treaty and, as they have not promised to exercise their power, they are exempt from further enforcement.
«Although various theories have been put forward by judges and jurists in England on the legal basis of the doctrine of frustration, the essential idea on which the doctrine is based is that of the impossibility of executing the contract; Indeed, impossibility and frustration are often used as interchangeable expressions.