Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter IV: Of the Performance of Contracts · Contracts which must be performed
Section 39: Effect of refusal of party to perform promise wholly
In plain words
If a party refuses to perform, or disables themselves from performing, their whole promise, the other party can end the contract, unless they have shown by words or conduct that they accept its continuance.
Example: A singer contracted for two nights a week skips the sixth night. The theatre manager can end the contract. But if the manager lets the singer perform on the seventh night, the contract continues and the manager can only claim compensation for the missed night.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance.
Illustrations
(a) A, a singer, enters into a contract with B, the manager of a theatre, to sing at his theatre two nights in every week during the next two months, and B engages to pay her 100 rupees for each night's performance. On the sixth night A wilfully absents herself from the theatre. B is at liberty to put an end to the contract.
(b) A, a singer, enters into a contract with B, the manager of a theatre, to sing at his theatre two night' in every week during the next two months, and B engages to pay her at the rate of 100 rupees for each night. On the sixth night, A wilfully absents herself. With the assent of B, A sings on the seventh night. B has signified his acquiescence in the continuance of the contract, and cannot now put an end to it, but is entitled to compensation for the damage sustained by him through A's failure to sing on the sixth night.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 39
- Vinod Bansal v. M/S Intec Capital Ltd
- Bharat Hotels Limited & Anr v. New Delhi Municipal Council
- Bharat Hotels Ltd. and Anr v. New Delhi Municipal Council
- Sudhir Jain v. Sarla Mittal and Others
- Bell Finvest (India) Limited & Ors v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd
- M/S Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors.
- Lalit Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Jaipur Traders Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
- Burn Standard Company Limited v. Mcdermott International Inc. and Another
- State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Digambar Balwant Kulkarni