Consideration (ss. 2(d), 25): definition and ingredients, essentials, adequacy, Indian v English law, 'no consideration no contract' and its exceptions
LUG-103 Law of Contract including Specific Relief Act & Sale of Goods Act, Unit I: Consideration: · LLB · 60 min
This lecture covers topics 13 and 14 of Unit I. It takes s. 2(d) phrase by phrase - at the desire of the promisor (Durga Prasad v. Baldeo), from the promisee or any other person (Chinnaya v. Ramayya), past, present and future, 'something' - then the essentials of valid consideration, adequacy and Explanation 2 to s. 25, forbearance and pre-existing duty, and the three points on which the Indian Act departs from English law (Currie v. Misa). It ends with the rule that an agreement without consideration is void and the exceptions in s. 25 and s. 185, with Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mahomed and Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali.
Objectives
- Define consideration under s. 2(d) and explain each of its ingredients with the leading case
- State the essentials of a valid consideration and the rule on adequacy in Explanation 2 to s. 25
- Contrast the Indian definition with the English benefit-detriment definition on past consideration and consideration from a third person
- Explain the rule 'no consideration, no contract' and apply the exceptions in s. 25 and s. 185
- Distinguish Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mahomed from Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali on charitable subscriptions
Slides
- What s. 2(d) says, and why consideration matters
- Ingredient 1: 'at the desire of the promisor' - Durga Prasad v. Baldeo
- Ingredient 2: 'the promisee or any other person' - Chinnaya v. Ramayya; privity of consideration
- Ingredient 3: past, present and future consideration (2019-20 Q(A)5)
- Ingredients 4 and 5: 'something' - real, lawful, not adequate; forbearance; pre-existing duty
- Essentials of a valid consideration (2018-19 Q(B)5, 2019-20 Q(C)2)
- Indian v English law on consideration (2019-20 Q(C)2)
- No consideration, no contract: s. 25 and its first exception
- Exceptions 2 and 3: past voluntary service and time-barred debt; agency and completed gift
- Charitable subscriptions: Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mahomed and Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali
- How the examiner asks it
Loading the lecture…