KAMAT, J.:- These two appeals require consideration of various implications and application of the basic Common Law Rule of contract that a man is bound to perform the obligation which he has undertaken and cannot claim to be excused by the mere fact that performance has subsequently become impossible. The law cannot regard a promise to do something obviously impossible as of any value, and such a promise is therefore no consideration. A man who promises without qualification is bound by the terms of his promise if he is found at all. If the parties do not mean their agreement to be unconditional, it is for them to qualify it by such conditions as they think fit. But a condition need not always be expressed in words; there are conditions which may be implied from the nature of the contract, and in certain cases where an event making performance impossible is of such nature and character that it cannot reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation, if the-contracting parties when the contract was made agreed that such performance of the promise is excused (sic). On this principle a contract is discharged if there is no fault of the promisor; if the performance is ren