consideration

• Price of the promise

• Quid pro quo- something for something
• An agreement made without consideration is nudum pactum ( a nude
contract) and is void
• Section 25- An agreement made without consideration is void
• Blackstone: consideration is the recompense given by the party
contracting to the other”.
• Pollock: consideration is the price for which the promise of the other
is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable
• Justice Patterson: consideration means something which is of some
value in the eyes of the law. It may be some benefit to the plaintiff or
some detriment to the defendant
• Currie v. Misa- Lush J- a valuable consideration in the sense of the law,
may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to
the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility
given, suffered or undertaken by the other.
• Section 2 (d): When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or
any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or
abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing,
something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration
for the promise
Essentials of consideration
• Consideration only at the desire of the promisor
• Consideration by promise or any other person
• Consideration may be past, present or future
• There should be some act, abstinence or promise by the promisee,
which constitutes consideration for the promise
Consideration only at the desire of the promisor

• It is essential that the consideration must have been given at the

desire of the promisor, rather than merely voluntarily or at the
instance of some third party
• Case law: Durga Prasad v. Baldeo- the consideration for the promise
had not moved at the desire of the promisor but some other person,
and it was held that the same was not sufficient consideration to
support the promise.
• The plaintiff constructed certain shops in a market at the instance of
the Collector of that place.
• The defendants occupied one of the shops in the market. As the plaintiff had
spent money for the construction of the market, the defendants in
consideration thereof, made a promise to pay to the plaintiff commission on
the articles sold.
• The defendants failed to pay the commission
• The court observed that the consideration for the promise to pay the
commission was the construction of the market by the plaintiff.
• Such construction had not been done at the desire of the defendants, but on
the order of the collector
• The consideration did not move at the desire of the defendants, this did not
constitute valid consideration.
• Kedar Nath v. Gorie. Mohd. (1886) ILR 14 Cal 64: on the faith of the
promised subscription the plaintiff entered in to a contract with a
contractor for the purpose of building a town hall.
• Held that the plaintiff’s act in entering into a contract with the
contractor was done ‘at the desire of the defendant (the promisor) so
as to constitute consideration
• Doraswamy Iyer v. A.Ayyar (AIR 1936 Mad 135):
• The temple repairs were already in progress when the subscription
were invited.
• Held that the action was not induced by the promise to subscribe but
was rather independent of it.
• Thus, the subscriber (defendant) who had promised to pay but had
later refused was not held liable
Consideration by promisee or any other
person
• A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is
quite immaterial that it moves from the promisee or any other person
• This is called ‘Doctrine of Constructive Consideration’
• Under English Law, there is a ‘Privity of Consideration’
• Consideration must move from the promisee and promisor only, a
stranger or third person cannot furnish consideration
• Eg: A promises to give his watch to B and a consideration of Rs. 2,000
for the same is given to A by X and not by B.
• This is not a valid contract in England, but will be valid in India
• Chinnaya v. Ramaya (1882) 4 Mad. 137:
• ‘A’ an old lady, granted an estate to her daughter (defendant) with a
direction that the daughter should pay an annuity of Rs. 653, to A’s
brothers. On the same day, the defendant made a promise with the
plaintiff that she would pay the annuity as directed by A. Later she did
not pay, and said that plaintiff’s did not furnish any consideration, and
they had no right of action.
• The madras High Court held that the consideration furnished by the
old lady is enough to enforce the promise.