What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed?

Karma can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right ?

Yes. Only when karma has 0 (zero) chances to produce effects in the future (this lifetime, next, or the next, or the next, or ANY life in the future), it can be said that it's destroyed.

Karma can only be destroyed with attainment of Nibanna. Then, karma will not produce any effects.

If Nibanna is not attained, a potential will remain for karma to produce wholesome, unwholesome or neutral effects.

Unwholesome effects raise the potential for future effects. Wholesome effects lower the potential for future effects. Neutral effects neither raise nor lower the potential for future effects.

When karma is not destroyed, only its potential for future effects can be changed.

The potential of karma to produce effects in the future can be diminished to 0 only with attainment of Nirvana.

If Nirvana is not attained, the potential of karma to produce effects in the future will always be more than 0.

Please note that this does not mean that if one attains Nirvana or Nibanna, the potential for karma to produce effects is impossible to be more than 0. It can become more than 0 again, only it will come from wisdom, not ignorance.

UPDATE:

Here it says:

Subsequently effective (upapajjavedanya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the existence immediately following that in which it is performed; otherwise it becomes defunct.

Defunct (ahosi) kamma: This term does not designate a special class of kamma, but applies to kamma that was due to ripen in either the present existence or the next existence but did not meet conditions conducive to its maturation. In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives becomes defunct with their final passing away.

Source: http://www.saraniya.com/books/meditation/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Comprehensive_Manual_of_Abhidhamma.pdf

Above it does not say that defunct kamma means that it is destroyed. The way I see it above, the term 'defunct' is ambiguous - it could mean "the potential for future effects is exactly 0 (zero) (thus karma is destroyed)" or it could also mean "the potential for future effects is so small that there is almost 0 (zero) chance that it will produce effects in the future (thus karma is not destroyed)". I know it's the latter.

Here it says:

"Monks, I don't speak of the wiping out of intentional acts that have been done & accumulated without [their results] having been experienced, either in the here & now or in a further state hereafter.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html

Here it says:

"An action to be experienced cannot be turned, through striving & exertion, into an action not to be experienced.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

And here it says:

Here, following Norman (1997:166), I use the reading upapajjaṁ or uppajjaṁ “in the next life” (rather than the variant uppajje). Buddhaghosa “corrects” upapajjaṁ here and else where to be a tatpurusha, as upapajje or uppajje. The Commentary explains this sentence (wherever it occurs) as referring to “3 kinds of karma” (ti kamma), according to the time of their ripening (vipāka) or fruiting (phala), thus:

1. karma experienced in the present life
2. karma experienced in the following life
3. karma experienced in a subsequent life

However useful such an idea may be, it should be noted that it is not attested in the early Canon. Discourses such as the Deva, daha Sutta (M 101) simply speak only of two kinds of karma in terms of time of ripening or fruiting, that is:

1. karma “to be experienced here and now,” and
2. karma “to be experienced in another life”

Source: http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.9-Sancetanika-S-a10.206-piya.pdf

Thus said, my position remains unchanged.

No, actions can not be done undone, breath, past can not be destroyed. So also their results will come into being, as long (as excluded to be answered) there is to BE.

That's importand: outside there is no escape.

By effort, having a cause, certain deeds are done or not, and those effects will take place or not.

Breath: "I read now at manual of abidhamma that karmas can destroy other karmas - and a comment from some member here that if some karmas dont have a chance to rise in this life or the next they destroyed (by destroyed i mean they dont have any effect)"

Maybe add a link in your question, for such is not the Dhamma of the Buddha: no effect, when there is a cause. One may, as said, by training the mind skillfully, bear it with more ease, of cause even to big extend. Nevertheless, what has been caused will have it's effect.

Here again some illustrations and Suttas (also to do not understand the law of kamma as a straight line, determinated):

Aṅgulimāla’s case illustrates a general principle stated in AN 3:101: If the workings of kamma required strict, tit-for-tat justice—with your having to experience the consequences of each act just as you inflicted it on others—there’s no way that anyone could reach the end of suffering. The reason we can reach awakening is because even though actions of a certain type give a corresponding type of result, the intensity of how that result is felt is determined, not only by the original action, but also—and more importantly—by our state of mind when the results ripen. If you’ve developed unlimited goodwill and equanimity, and have trained well in virtue, discernment, and the ability to be overcome neither by pleasure nor pain, then when the results of past bad actions ripen, you’ll hardly experience them at all. If you haven’t trained yourself in these ways, then even the results of a trifling bad act can consign you to hell.

The Buddha illustrates this principle with three similes. The first is the easiest to digest: The results of past bad actions are like a large salt crystal AN 3.99. An untrained mind is like a small cup of water; a well-trained mind, like the water in a large, clear river. If you put the salt into the water of the cup, you can’t drink it because it’s too salty. But if you put the salt into the river, you can still drink the water because there’s so much more of it and it’s so clean. All in all, an attractive image. The other two similes, though, underscore the point that the principle they’re illustrating goes against some very basic ideas of fairness. In one simile, the bad action is like the theft of money; in the other, like the theft of a goat. In both similes, the untrained mind is like a poor person who gets heavily punished for either of these two crimes, whereas the well-trained mind is like the rich person who doesn’t get punished for either theft at all. In these cases, the images are much less attractive, but they drive home the point that, for kamma to work in a way that rewards the training of the mind to put an end to suffering, it can’t work in such a way as to guarantee justice. If we insisted on a system of kamma that did guarantee justice, the path to freedom from suffering would be closed. (from: Wisdom over Justice)

See also:

• Kamma & the Ending of Kamma

• The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH

[Note: This is a Gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]