If one person assumes responsibility for another`s promise to contribute to charity, then the contract is valid. In this case, the rule of non-consequence does not apply. 25. Agreement without consideration, unless it is written and registered or is a commitment, made for something or is a commitment to pay a debt prescribed by the statute of limitations It is well established in English law as well as in the Indian Treaty Act that consideration is essential for an enforceable contract. It is an act or abstinence by the promised or another person, at the request of the promisor. The reflection may have passed, future or executor. In accordance with the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the definition of consideration in section 2 d), reflection may be made by “the promisor or any other person” as long as it is done “at the request of the promisor.” Thus, if the promiseor has no objection, the consideration of a promise or another person may differ from that of another person. There are some cases where contracts are enforceable without consideration. Example: A teaches the child of B at the request of B. After six months, B agrees to pay at the sum of 600 euros/- for his teaching. For B`s promises, A`s services are considered past considerations.
In general, taking into account the past is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. The attention of the past is a reflection that has already been received by the promise made to the promisor. In other words, the act or indulgence of the proceeds of the promise is the result of the promise of the promisor. The current consideration cannot therefore be used as the basis for the action for damages.  In Sindha Shri Ganpatsinghji v. Abraham , the Bombay Supreme Court stated that the services provided at the request of the minor were expressed during its minority and sued at the same request, after its majority was a good counterpart to a subsequent explicit promise of him in favour of the person who provided the services. A contract without consideration is non-applicable because it is legally unenforceable. Read 3 min In Curie v.
Misa, the term was defined, “A valid consideration within the meaning of the law may exist either in one right, interest, leniency, injury, loss or liability, given, suffered or assumed by the other.” In accordance with Section 185 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, no reflection is required to create an agency. The reason why contracts require the exchange of an object of value is to distinguish a legal agreement from a generous gift or a promise made by one party to another, none of which is legally enforceable. For example, if your friend mows your lawn without asking for anything in return, it doesn`t count as a contract because you didn`t promise a quid pro quo. If your friend promises to mow your lawn but doesn`t, you can`t sue for damages. One can be considered a value-creating concept offered and accepted by individuals or organizations that enter into contracts. Anything promised by one party to the other in entering into a contract can be considered a “compensation”: if A signs, for example, a contract to buy a car B for $5,000, A is the consideration of $5,000, and B`s consideration is the car. Section 185 expressly states that there is no need to consider the creation of an agency contract. Therefore, when a person is appointed as an agent, his appointment agreement is valid without consideration. An agent receives the commission as compensation, but no consideration is required at the time of the appointment agreement. For the validity of a contract, there must be several elements: if the benefits are provided voluntarily, without the wish of the promisor or otherwise at his request, the promisor undertakes to compensate the person who has performed his benefits.
In such cases, the commitment does not need consideration to support them, and the case falls under section 25 of the act; Sindha Shri Ganpatsingji v. Abraham aka Vazir Mahomed Akuji, (1895) 20 Bom 755.