Prove what the missing facility actually prevented
Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 excuses the promisor from non-performance to the extent caused by the promisee’s neglect or refusal to provide reasonable facilities for performance. An installer refused entry may have an excuse for the work that genuinely needed site access. It still needs to show that access was a dependency and that it was able to perform when access should have been provided.
Read the applicable text: Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 51–55, 67 and 73, including the Section 67 illustration.
Read the contract before allocating the delay
List the facilities the customer was expected to provide, such as access, shutdown windows, drawings or identification of work areas. Record delivery conditions, who controlled them, when requests were sent and whether a reasonable alternative existed. The Act's illustration concerns a repair customer who failed to point out the places requiring repair. In a modern installation, the relevant question is likewise what the contractor could reasonably have done with the information and access available.
Measure the affected obligation and any overlapping delay
Put the original work programme next to actual events. Link each unavailable facility to the affected work package and its expected sequence. Separate unaffected work, supplier readiness issues, and work that could be resequenced. Concurrent delays need individual analysis; avoid treating the same calendar days as two extensions or assuming that every day on site was lost. The calculation in the file is a factual reconciliation before any decision about contractual relief.
Separate excuse from money claims
Section 67 addresses the extent of excused non-performance. It does not itself establish standby rates, a revised completion date, damages, additional fees or a right to terminate. Review contractual notice, extensions, agreed variations and any separate remedy. If the facts involve reciprocal promises, Sections 51–54 may govern readiness, sequence, prevention or a prior default; those tests are distinct from Section 67. If a breach and right to compensation are established, Section 73 separately addresses causation, remoteness and the means available to remedy the inconvenience. Preserve instructions and actual cost records while reserving the parties' positions where responsibility is disputed.
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts are fictional. Calculations illustrate the stated assumptions, not a predetermined legal outcome.
Illustrative example 1: Site access affects one work package
A five-day programme contains three site days and two desk days. Site access is withheld throughout the site window; desk work can still be completed. Three of five planned days are affected, and two remain performable.
Illustrative example 2: Supplier was not ready
Access is missing on days 1–6. The installer has no crew until day 3. Only days 3–6, four days, fall in the access-only candidate interval before further contractual and critical-path review.
Illustrative example 3: Partial permit
A permit covers 8 of 12 rooms and each room has one equal planned work unit. Four work units, one-third of the plan, remain blocked; eight can proceed if no other dependency applies.
Illustrative example 4: Shorter interruption after mitigation
A required site area is unavailable for seven days, but approved resequencing avoids losing four of those scheduled days. Three days remain in the factual net delay working.
Illustrative example 5: Two intersecting restrictions
Access is missing on days 1–5 and a necessary customer drawing is unavailable on days 4–8. Counting both inclusive intervals separately gives ten entries, with two overlaps. The union is eight calendar days before testing effect on completion. A combined eight-day window is not itself eight days of critical-path delay.
Illustrative example 6: Cost evidence is separate
Three affected days generate ₹24,000 of documented standby cost per day, or ₹72,000. A ₹12,000 redeployment saving reduces the net cost working to ₹60,000; recoverability depends on a separate basis.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify the promised work | Signed scope, milestones and site plan. |
| 2 | Identify the facility | Access, drawing, location or equipment dependency and its owner. |
| 3 | Read notice requirements | Contract clause, recipients and required timing. |
| 4 | Prove timely requests | Dated correspondence and customer responses. |
| 5 | Prove supplier readiness | Crew roster, equipment mobilisation and material status. |
| 6 | Track blocked and open work | Work package log and objective evidence of restrictions. |
| 7 | Analyse overlaps | Programme dates and competing sources of delay. |
| 8 | Record mitigation | Alternate work, access windows and redeployment. |
| 9 | Separate commercial claims | Distinct cost evidence and entitlement review. |
| 10 | Close the performance file | Updated programme, formal decision and evidence archive. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Is section 67 a blanket excuse?
No. It applies only to non-performance caused by the missing reasonable facilities.
2. Does the customer need to refuse expressly?
Neglect can also be relevant; preserve the evidence of requests and conduct.
3. Can the supplier stop unrelated work?
Determine which obligations remain performable; section 67 does not automatically excuse them.
4. What shows readiness?
Labour, materials, equipment and approved plans available when performance was due.
5. Is an unsigned access log useful?
It can support chronology, but corroborate it with reliable independent records.
6. What if the customer offers alternative access?
Assess its reasonableness and actual effect on the planned work.
7. Can a contractor rely only on a later email?
Retain contemporaneous records and comply with any contractual notice requirements.
8. Do delay days automatically extend completion?
No. Check critical path and contractual extension provisions.
9. Can standby costs be recovered automatically?
No. Establish the contractual or other basis for recovery separately.
10. What if a supplier delay overlaps?
Separate periods and causes; do not attribute overlapping time without analysis.
11. Is a missing drawing always a customer default?
Check who was obliged to produce it, when it was needed and what work depended on it.
12. Can a subcontractor’s delay be ignored?
No. It may affect whether the main promisor was ready to perform.
13. How are unaffected milestones treated?
Track them separately and keep their own completion records.
14. Does section 67 automatically cancel the contract?
No. Termination or discharge needs its own legal basis.
15. Should planned cost and actual loss be merged?
Keep distinct schedules, including saved or avoided costs.
16. What closes the issue when access is restored?
Record restoration, restart readiness and any agreed revised milestones.