In India, the defenses available in a breach of contract claim are as follows: Impossibility of performance: If the performance of the contract becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances or events beyond the control of the parties, then the party in breach may argue that they were unable to perform the contract due to impossibility. Frustration of contract: If an event occurs that makes the performance of the contract impossible or significantly changes the nature of the contract, then the party in breach may argue that the contract has been frustrated. Mutual agreement: If the parties mutually agree to terminate the contract, then the party in breach may argue that they have not breached the contract as the contract was terminated with mutual consent. Anticipatory breach: If one party communicates to the other party that they are not going to perform their obligations under the contract, then the other party may terminate the contract and sue for damages. Limitation: If the claim is barred by the limitation period, then the party in breach may argue that the claim is time-barred. Waiver: If the aggrieved party has waived their right to claim damages for the breach of contract, then the party in breach may argue that they are not liable for the breach of contract. Illegality: If the contract is illegal or against public policy, then the party in breach may argue that the contract is unenforceable. It is important to note that the defenses available will depend on the facts of each case, and the party in breach must establish the defense with sufficient evidence to be successful.

DEAR CLIENT, In the Indian legal context, when a breach of contract claim is made, the defendant can raise several defenses to contest the claim. These defenses can either negate the existence of a contract, justify the breach, or assert other legal technicalities that might absolve the defendant from liability. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Indian jurisprudence provide a framework for these defenses. Below are some of the predominant defenses available in a breach of contract claim in India: One of the primary defenses is that one or more parties lacked the capacity to contract. Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, individuals must be of the age of majority (18 years), of sound mind, and not disqualified by any law to which they are subject. If a party can prove that they lacked capacity, the contract is rendered void. Consent must be freely given, and if it was obtained through coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or a mistake of fact, it can be deemed invalid. Sections 13-22 of the Indian Contract Act define circumstances under which consent can be said to be absent. If the aggrieved party can establish that they did not give free consent, they can argue that the contract is voidable. For a contract to be enforceable, its object and consideration must be lawful (as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act). If a contract’s terms are illegal or against public policy, it is void ab initio. A defendant may assert that the contract is unenforceable due to its illegal nature. If unforeseen events make the performance of the contract impossible, the party can claim that the contract is void under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with the doctrine of frustration. For example, if a contract for the sale of goods becomes impossible to deliver due to government restrictions, the party can assert this defense. If the claimant has breached the contract first or has failed to perform their obligations, the defendant may argue that they are not liable for a subsequent breach. This principle is based on the idea that a party should not benefit from their own wrong. Sometimes, parties may agree to suspend or modify the performance due to various circumstances. If such an agreement exists and is valid, the defendant may assert that their performance was excused. If the terms of the contract are imprecise or ambiguous, a defendant may argue that the obligation for performance is unclear, which hampers the enforcement of the contract. The court may be inclined to interpret the contract in a manner that does not impose liability. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that every suit must be filed within a prescribed time limit. If the claimant files their case after this period, the defendant can contend that the claim is time-barred. A defendant may argue that the claimant has, through their actions or inactions, waived their right to claim for the breach or is estopped from doing so. For example, if the aggrieved party accepts late performance without objection, they may be seen as having waived their right to enforce timely performance. We hope this clarifies your query. Please feel free to reach out for further assistance. Thank you

DEAR CLIENT, Under Indian law, when a party is accused of breaching a contract, they may raise certain legal defenses to avoid liability. These defenses are primarily governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The availability of these defenses depends on the nature of the contract and the circumstances of the breach. Common Defenses in a Breach of Contract Claim 1. Lack of a Valid Contract o If the contract itself is not legally enforceable, no claim for breach can arise. A contract may be invalid due to lack of essential elements such as offer, acceptance, consideration, or lawful object, as required under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2. Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Undue Influence o If a contract was entered into due to fraud (Section 17), misrepresentation (Section 18), or undue influence (Section 16), the contract may be voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. A defendant can argue that the contract is not binding due to these factors. 3. Mistake of Fact or Law o If both parties were under a mutual mistake of fact concerning an essential part of the contract, the agreement may be void under Section 20. Similarly, mistakes of law may provide a defense in certain cases. 4. Lack of Capacity to Contract o A contract entered into with a minor, a person of unsound mind, or someone legally disqualified from contracting is void under Sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. If the defendant lacked capacity at the time of entering into the contract, they can use this as a defense. 5. Illegality and Violation of Public Policy o A contract that involves an illegal object or consideration, such as agreements in restraint of trade or contracts that contravene public policy, is void under Section 23. A defendant can argue that the contract is unenforceable due to its illegal nature. 6. Impossibility of Performance (Doctrine of Frustration) o Under Section 56, a contract becomes void if its performance is rendered impossible due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as a change in law or destruction of the subject matter. 7. Force Majeure Clause o If the contract contains a force majeure clause covering unforeseeable events (e.g., natural disasters, pandemics, war), the defendant may be excused from performance under the contract. 8. Performance Prevented by the Plaintiff o If the plaintiff hindered or prevented the defendant from performing their contractual obligations, the defendant can claim that they were unable to fulfill the contract due to the plaintiff's actions. 9. Waiver and Acquiescence o If the plaintiff knowingly allowed the breach to occur without objection or continued to accept benefits under the contract, they may be deemed to have waived their rights to enforce the contract. 10. Limitation Period Expired o Under the Limitation Act, 1963, a claim for breach of contract must be filed within three years from the date of breach. If the plaintiff files the case after the limitation period expires, the defendant can use this as a defense. Please feel free to reach out for further assistance. Thank you