https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238500 A statutory auction purchaser could not resist forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit by invoking frustration or impossibility under the Contract Act, because Rule 5(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 expressly required forfeiture on failure to execute the agreement or comply with obligations. The Court treated the rule as part of the statutory bargain and held that supervening difficulty, including public resistance, did not displace the express default consequence. It also held that fairness or reasonableness could not be used to rewrite or invalidate the rule in a voluntary commercial auction, and doctrines applied to unequal employment contracts were inapplicable. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238500 A statutory auction purchaser could not resist forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit by invoking frustration or impossibility under the Contract Act, because Rule 5(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 expressly required forfeiture on failure to execute the agreement or comply with obligations. The Court treated the rule as part of the statutory bargain and held that supervening difficulty, including public resistance, did not displace the express default consequence. It also held that fairness or reasonableness could not be used to rewrite or invalidate the rule in a voluntary commercial auction, and doctrines applied to unequal employment contracts were inapplicable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238500