Introduction to Consideration

The section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 openly declares that an agreement made
without consideration is void 1
I n o t h e r w o r d s t h e p r e s e n c e o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s a n essential for a
contract to be valid. 2
In England too promises without consideration arenot enforced, because they are
gratuitous.3
In England the contracts are divided into twocategories:
1.Contracts under seal, or contracts in the form of a deed. Such contracts are
valideven without consideration.
2.Simple contracts or parol contracts. For validity of such contracts the
presence of consideration is needed.Consideration in simple words means something in
return of a promise which may either be benefit gained by one party or something
lost by the other. So generally there can beno doubt that for a valid contract, there
must be consideration, and also free consent.4
Definitions of Consideration
According to Blackstone5
:Consideration is the recompense given by a party contracting to the other.Or the price
of the promise.Sir Fredrik Pollock summarized the position of words adopted by the
House of Lords in1915: An act of forbearance of one party or the promise
thereof is the price for whichthe promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus
given for value is enforceable.6
The definition given in
Curre v Misa7
by Lush J is widely accepter and stated onthe next page:A valuable consideration in
the sense of the law may consist either in some
right,i n t e r e s t , p r o f i t o r b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o t h e o n e p a r t y , o r
m e f o r b e a r a n c e , determent, loss, or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by
the other
Definitions of Consideration under Section 2(d)
1

The section also provides some exceptions to the rule.

Section 10
3
See HEATH J in Lee v Muggeridge, (1813) 128 ER 559
4
Sunitibala Devi v Manindra Chandra Roy, A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 217
5
Commentaries.
2

Pollock On Contracts (13thEd.) p. 133

(1875) LR 10 Ex 153, 162

Section 2 (d), The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consideration as given
under:When, at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done
or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing or promises to do or
abstain fromd o i n g s o m e t h i n g , s u c h a c t o r a b s t i n e n c e o r p r o m i s e i s
c a l l e d a c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e promise.

Contribution to charities
A promise to contribute to charity, though gratuitous, would be enforceable, if on the faith
of the promised subscription, the promisee takes definite steps in furtherance of the object
and undertakes a liability, to the extent of liability incurred, not exceeding the promised
amount of subscription. But where the promisee had done nothing on the faith on the
promise, a promised subscription is not legally recoverable.

Unilateral Promises
A unilateral promise is a a promise from one side only and is intended to induce some
action by the other party. A unilateral contract refers to a gratuitous promise where only
one party makes a promise without any return promise. Where the promisee has done
nothing , there is no consideration.
This is illustrated in Abdul Aziz v Masum Ali.

Facts of the case Abdul Aziz vs Masum Ali, (1914) 36 All

268.
This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the heirs of Munshi Abdul
Karim. The plaintiffs are the members of the Islam Local Agency Committee, Agra. It
appears that in the year 1907 a movement was set on foot to collect money for repairing
and re-constructing a mosque known as Masjid Hammam Alawardi Khan. The Local
Agency Committee themselves sanctioned a subscription of Rs. 3,000; besides this
amount Rs. 100 -were paid in cash at that time by Hakim Shafi-ul-lah; Rs. 500 were
promised by Munshi Abdul Karim; and another sum of Rs. 3,000 was promised by
Munshi Jan Mohammad. Munshi Abdul Karim was appointed treasurer. The Local
Agency Committee handed over their contribution of Rs. 3,000 to Munshi Abdul Karim
and he also received the donation of Rs, 100 from Hakim Shafi-ul-lah, Munshi Jan
Muhammad gave a cheque for Rs. 500, dated the 12th of September, 1907. On the 29th of
September, 1907, the cheque was presented for payment, but it was returned by the bank
with a note that the endorsement was not regular. It was again presented on the 12th of
January, 1909, when, the bank returned the cheque with a note that it was out of date,
Munshi Abdul Karim died on the 20th of April, 1909. The present suit was instituted
against his heirs on the 14th of April, 1910. Munshi Jan Muhammad died in May 1910.
The defendants do not dispute the right of the plaintiffs to recover the sum of Rs. 3,100;
they have admitted this part, of the plaintiffs' claim all along. It is admitted on both sides
that nothing has been done to carry out the repairs and re-construction of a part of the
mosque. Defence is, however, taken to two items, viz. the Rs. 500, represented by the
cheque of Munshi Jan Muhammad and the subscription of the deceased Munshi Abdul
Karim.

Judgement
The court of first instance granted a decree for the subscription promised by Munshi
Abdul Karim, but dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the claim for Rs. 500, the
subscription of Munshi Jan Muhammad, The lower appellate court granted a decree for
the entire claim. It appears to us that the suit cannot be maintained in respect of either
item. With regard to the subscription of Munshi Abdul Karim, this was a mere gratuitous
promise on his part. Under the circumstances of the present case it is admitted that if the
promise had been made by an outsider it could not have been enforced. We cannot see
that it makes any difference that Munshi Abdul Karim was a himself the treasurer. There
is no evidence that he ever set aside a sum of Rs. 500 to meet his promised subscription.
As to the other item, viz. the amount of Munshi Jan Muhammad's cheque, we see great
difficulty in holding that a suit could have been brought against Munshi Abdul Karim in
respect of this cheque during his life-time. His undertaking of the office of treasurer was
purely gratuitous. He might at any time have refused to go on with the work. It is said
that he must be regarded as the agent of the committee, and that if he was the agent he
was guilty of gross negligence and accordingly would have been liable for any loss the
Committee sustained. In our opinion Munshi Abdul Karim cannot be said to have been an
agent of the committee: even if he was, it is very doubtful that he could have been held
guilty of gross negligence. He had presented the cheque for payment, the mistake in the
endorsement was a very natural one and the delay in re-presenting the cheque or getting a
duplicate from the drawer may well be explained by the delay which took place in
carrying out the proposed work. In our opinion, under the circumstances of the present
case Munshi Abdul Karim could not have been sued in his life-time. It is quite clear that
if no suit lay against Munshi Abdul Karim in his lifetime, no suit could be brought after
his death against his heirs. The result is that we allow the appeal to this extent that we
vary the decree of the court below by dismissing the claim in respect of the two items of
Bs. 600 each. The appellants will get their costs of this appeal, In the court below the
parties will pay and receive coats in proportion to failure and success.