Essentials of Consideration
The definition of consideration highlights the following essentials to be fulfilled for the presence of a valid consideration:1)Consideration to be given “at the desire of the promisor”2)Consideration to be given “by the promise or an other person”3)Consideration may be past, present or future, in so far as definition says that the promisee:a)Has done or abstained from doing, or b)Does or abstains from doing, or c)Promises to do or to abstain from doing, something.4)There should be some act, abstinence or promise by the promisee, which constitutesconsideration for the promise.These essentials have been discussed in detail in the project.
Consideration at the Desire of the Promisor
The definition of consideration under section 2(d) clearly emphasizes that theconsideration must be given at the desire of the promisor, rather than merely voluntary or at the instance of some third party.In the case
Durga Parsad v Baldeo
The plaintiff, on the order of the Collector of the town, built at his own expense,certain shops in a bazaar. The shops came to be occupied by the defendants who,in consideration of the plaintiff having expended money in the construction, promised to pay him a commission on his articles sold through their agency in the bazaar. The plaintiff’s action to recover the commission was rejected. It was held because as the construction had not been done as per the desire of the defendants, but the order of the collector. Hence, the consideration was not valid and thedefendants not liable for the same.
Consideration by Promisee or any other Person(Privity of Consideration)
According to the Indian Law
,consideration may be given by ‘the promisee or any other person’. It means that as long as there is a consideration for a promise, it is immaterialwho has furnished it. It may move from the promisee, or, if the promisor has noobjection, from any other person. But in English Law the position is different, here theconsideration must move from the promisee himself.
For example, A promises to givehis watch to B and a consideration of Rs.5000 for the same is given to A by C and not Bhimself. This will not be a valid contract in England but in India it will be valid as the
(1880) 3 All. 221, Oilfield J at p. 228
Section 2(d); Indian Contract Act, 1872
Thomas v. Thomas, (1842) 2 Q.B. 851; Tweedle v Atkinson, (1816) 1 B.&S. 393