Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Performance of Contracts

Neglect of Promisee to Afford Facilities: Section 67

Updated 10 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act says that if a promisee neglects or refuses to give the promisor reasonable facilities to perform the promise, the promisor is excused from non-performance caused by that neglect. The promisee's default does not make the contract void by itself. To solve questions, find who needed help and whether it was refused.

Understand Neglect of Promisee to Afford Facilities (Section 67)

Many contracts cannot be performed unless the other party cooperates. A painter needs access to the house. A supplier needs a delivery point. A builder needs the site handed over. If the owner blocks this help, the promisor cannot do the job.

Section 67 deals with this. It says that when a promisee neglects or refuses to afford the promisor reasonable facilities for performing the promise, the promisor is excused for any non-performance caused by that neglect or refusal. The law will not punish you for failing to do something the other side stopped you from doing.

The key word is reasonable facilities. This means the help that is actually needed and that the promisee can fairly be expected to give. It is not every wish of the promisor. The excuse also covers only the non-performance caused by the neglect. If the promisor could have performed anyway, or the failure came from another cause, the excuse does not apply.

The effect is a protection for the promisor. The promisor is not liable for breach for that non-performance. Remember that Section 67 does not by itself end the contract. The promisee's neglect is a default on their side, and the wider consequences of it are dealt with under other provisions on breach and remedies.

Do not confuse it with Section 38. Section 38 applies when the promisor makes a valid tender (offer of performance) and the promisee refuses to accept it. Section 67 applies when the promisee does not provide the facilities needed before or during performance. Think: Section 38 is refusal to accept; Section 67 is refusal to help.

Key formulas to remember

Rule of Section 67: Promisee neglects or refuses to afford reasonable facilities → promisor is excused for non-performance caused by that neglect; The excuse is limited to non-performance caused by the neglect or refusal.
Conditions to apply the rule: Valid promise + facilities needed + facilities reasonable + promisee neglects or refuses + non-performance results; If any condition is missing, Section 67 does not protect the promisor.
Section 67 vs Section 38: Section 67: refusal of facilities for performance. Section 38: refusal to accept a valid tender of performance.; Tender has already been made in Section 38. In Section 67 performance is blocked before it can be offered.

How to solve Neglect of Promisee to Afford Facilities (Section 67) questions

Use this method for any scenario question on Section 67.

1Identify the promisor (who must perform) and the promisee (who receives performance).
2Ask what help the promisor needed to perform, such as access, materials, site or information.
3Check whether that help was reasonable and necessary for performance.
4Check whether the promisee neglected or refused to give it.
5Check that the non-performance was caused by that neglect, not by another reason.
6If all hold, state that the promisor is excused from the non-performance under Section 67.
7If the facts show a valid tender that was refused, switch to Section 38 instead.

Quickest way: Help or Tender test

When to use it: Use when an MCQ gives a short fact pattern and asks which section applies or whether the promisor is liable.

Ask: did the promisor already offer performance properly? If yes, think Section 38.
Ask: was the promisor stopped from performing because help was not given? If yes, think Section 67.
Check that the non-performance really came from that lack of help.
Pick the option that excuses the promisor only for that caused non-performance.
Eliminate options that say the contract is automatically void or the promisor must pay damages.

Common mistakes in Neglect of Promisee to Afford Facilities (Section 67)

Saying the contract becomes void under Section 67.
Students link any promisee default with ending the contract.
Fix: Section 67 only excuses the promisor for non-performance caused by the neglect. It does not declare the contract void.
Mixing up Section 67 and Section 38.
Both involve the promisee not cooperating.
Fix: Section 38 needs a valid tender that is refused. Section 67 is about refusing facilities needed to perform.
Excusing the promisor for all non-performance.
Students ignore the word 'caused by'.
Fix: Only non-performance resulting from the neglect is excused. Other failures remain the promisor's responsibility.
Ignoring the word 'reasonable'.
Students assume any demand by the promisor must be met.
Fix: Check that the facility was necessary and fair to expect. An unreasonable demand does not trigger the rule.
Applying the rule when the promisor never needed any help.
Students see a promisee who is uncooperative and jump to Section 67.
Fix: First confirm that performance actually depended on the promisee's facilities.

Worked examples

Example 1

Meera agrees to paint Raman's house for ₹60,000 by 30 June. Raman keeps the house locked and refuses to give her access. Meera cannot start and the work is not done by 30 June. Is Meera liable for non-performance?

Show the solution

Promisor is Meera. Promisee is Raman.
Meera needed access to the house to paint it. This is a reasonable and necessary facility.
Raman refused to give access, so he neglected to afford facilities.
The non-performance was caused by this refusal.
Under Section 67, Meera is excused for the non-performance.

Answer: Meera is not liable for non-performance, because Raman's refusal of reasonable facilities caused it (Section 67).

Example 2

Which statement correctly distinguishes Section 67 from Section 38? (A) Both apply only after a valid tender is made. (B) Section 67 concerns refusal of facilities needed to perform, while Section 38 concerns refusal to accept a valid tender. (C) Section 67 makes the contract void, while Section 38 makes it valid. (D) Section 38 applies only to contracts for services.

Show the solution

Option A is wrong: Section 67 does not need a tender.
Option B matches the rule: Section 67 is about facilities, Section 38 about refusal of tendered performance.
Option C is wrong: Section 67 does not make the contract void.
Option D is wrong: Section 38 is not limited to services.

Answer: Option B

Exam tips

Look for keywords such as 'refused access', 'did not provide site', 'did not supply materials'. They point to Section 67.
If the question says the promisor 'offered' or 'tendered' and was refused, think Section 38.
Remember the effect: the promisor is excused for non-performance caused by the neglect.
Eliminate options that say the contract is void or that the promisor must pay compensation for that default.
Watch for 'reasonable'. A tricky option may describe an unnecessary or unfair demand.

Practice questions from Performance of Contracts

Neglect of Promisee to Afford Facilities (Section 67): frequently asked questions

What does Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act say?

It says that if a promisee neglects or refuses to give the promisor reasonable facilities to perform the promise, the promisor is excused for non-performance caused by that neglect or refusal.

What is the difference between Section 38 and Section 67?

Section 38 deals with a valid tender of performance that the promisee refuses to accept. Section 67 deals with the promisee not giving facilities that the promisor needs in order to perform. In short, one is refusal to accept, the other is refusal to help.

Does Section 67 end the contract?

No. It only excuses the promisor for the non-performance caused by the promisee's neglect. The contract is not made void by this section alone.

What are reasonable facilities?

They are the help a promisor genuinely needs to perform and that the promisee can fairly be expected to give, such as access to a site or delivery of needed materials. Unnecessary or unfair demands do not count.