However, section 65 of the Act provides that, where an agreement has become inconclusive, the person who has benefited from such an agreement is “obliged” to restore or compensate it, from which it was obtained. For example, X, a singer, has a contract with Y, a theater manager, to sing two nights a week in her theater, and Y agrees to pay her a hundred rupees for each evening performance. X intentionally misses the theater on the sixth night and Y withdraws the contract. Y has to pay X for the five nights she sang. The question that arises is whether this section also applies to contracts cancelled out of frustration. The frustration of a contract arises without fault or control of one party and, therefore, a party should not be required to compensate in such a case. However, the lack of adequate compensation may also result in a loss for the other party.