Agreement without Consideration in India

Under sections 10 and 25 of the Indian Contracts Act, the contract is void without consideration, so the rule is « no consideration, no contract. » However, under section 25 of the Contracts Act, exceptions are provided to ensure that an agreement entered into without consideration is not void. When a donor gives a gift to the recipient, it is always based on natural love and affection. Therefore, the standard agreement is void without consideration, does not apply to the presentation of gifts. If an agreement is reached in writing and between two parties in close relationship with each other (such as a blood relative or wife) based on natural love and affection, that agreement is enforceable without consideration. The promise to pay for previous voluntary service is binding and such agreements do not require any exceptions. It is necessary that the services be provided voluntarily. For example, if A supports B`s young son and B promises to pay A`s expenses in the process. It is a contract. He noted that B was legally obliged to provide for his young son.

Under this exception, the promise must be to compensate a person who did something to promise him himself, not a person who did nothing to promise him. According to section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, « if part of a single consideration for one or more objects or part or part of one of several counterparties for a single object is unlawful and the agreement is void. » In other words, if a promise has been made to a person who has voluntarily provided a service, in this case, all agreements are enforceable without consideration. In Curie v. Misa the term was defined as follows: « A valuable consideration within the meaning of the law may be either a right, interest, forbearance, disadvantage, loss or liability given, suffered or assumed by the other. » Nevertheless, if the borrower has undertaken in writing to repay the amount in whole or in part, and he or his authorized representative has signed the contract; it is then considered legally enforceable, even if it is an agreement without consideration. Similarly, charity is an exception to this rule. Any transfer in the form of a gift or charity exchanged between the donor and the recipient will be considered a valid agreement, even if there is no consideration. www.preservearticles.com/2012012621491/exceptions-to-consideration-no-consideration-and-no-contract.html donation or charity is also an exception to the rule that an agreement is invalid without consideration. Any donation or charity exchanged between a donor and a recipient is considered a valid agreement under the law, even if no consideration has been provided. In addition, a promise to make a future donation is also binding. In each of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. So, if B treated A during his illness but refused to accept payment from A; Out of gratitude promises to pay ₹ 1,000 to the son of B, D, the agreement between A and D is invalid for lack of consideration, as it does not fall within this exception. A no-counterparty agreement is void and a contract without consideration is also void because the counterparty is an essential part of the contract.

The legal rules of consideration stipulate that it is imperative to have a counterparty for a valid contract. Is it necessary for the promisor himself to benefit from the return? It is a general rule that there is no agreement without consideration and regardless of whether the contract is void. In this article, we will discuss the universal rule that « a contract is void without consideration ». However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. The court does not assume responsibility for repairing bad business between the parties, but if it is so unjustified, it is a reason to question whether the consideration was provided voluntarily with the consent of the other party. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the definition of consideration in paragraph 2(d) states that consideration may be provided by « the promisor or another person » provided that it is done « at the request of the promisor ». Thus, the counterpart of a promisor or another person, if the provocateur has no objections, can pass from another person. In venkata Chinnaya v. Venkataramaya Garu,[8] an old lady gave the defendant, her daughter and certainly real estate a deed of gift.

The conditions are that a fixed pension of Rs. 653 be paid each year to the plaintiff, the sister of the old lady. The defendant argued in favour of the plaintiffs and iqrarnama and agreed to implement this provision. The plaintiff brought an action for non-payment of maintenance by the defendant. Here is the consideration for the defendant`s promise to pay the maintenance, the deed of gift of the old lady and the consideration was provided by the plaintiff. In this case, if a promise has been made to a person who has voluntarily provided a service, any agreement without consideration is legally enforceable. Outside of voluntary service, if a person performs an act to which the promisor was legally kept, a promise made in exchange for that service is considered valid. For example, consider an example of a non-quid agreement as the invalid exception. Suppose that two individuals A and B are neighbors. One day, there was a fire in B`s house, which A discovered in time and prevented it from spreading.

For this reason, B promised to pay A a sum of Rs.10,000 at a later date. This is one of the no-quid pro quo agreements that is considered valid by a court. Example: A teaches the child of B at the request of B. After six months, B agrees to pay A the sum of ₹600/- for his lessons. For B`s promise, A`s services are considered a past consideration. Under section 185 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, no consideration is required to establish an agency. Contracts may be concluded expressly or implicitly. It may result from confiscation, necessity or ratification. A dentist says he will charge $10,000 or $6,000 for his services. This is an uncertain consideration and difficult to achieve due to uncertainty about the exact amount.

Similarly, in sindha Shri Ganpat Singh Ji v. Abraham (1896), the Bombay High Court ruled that the service rendered to the minor at his request, and even after the minor had obtained the age of majority, continued, was a good consideration for a subsequent express promise by the minor to the person who provided the services. As part of a review of the Law Enforcement Act, responsibility on both sides is opened. It is, in fact, a promise for a promise; one promise is bought by the other. .