Wednesday, May 29, 2013

CONSIDERATION - Indian Contract Act 1872

Consideration: Sec.2 (d) – when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done/abstained from doing or promises to do or abstain from doing something - such act or abstinence or promise is called consideration for the promise.
It means price for which the promise of the other is bought  - a valuable consideration as a price of the promise – some of value received by the promisee as an inducement of the promise quid pro quo ( something in return) – may be of some benefit to the plaintiff or some detriment to the defendant. 
Abdul Aziz Vs. Masum Ali – a promise to subscribe Rs.500 for re-building a mosque – not fulfilled – secretary of mosque committee filed a suit for enforcement of promise – Held, the promise no enforceable as no consideration in the sense of benefit for the promisor – the secretary of the committee suffered no detriment as nothing has been done to carry out the repairs – no contract.
Durga Prasad Vs. Baldeo  - On the order of the Collector, plaintiff built shops at own expense – defendants occupied the shops – promised to pay him commission on sales – default by defendents – plaint rejected -  Held, construction by plaintiff not done at the desire of the defendants so as to constitute consideration.

Kedar Nath Vs. Gauri Mohamed  - Commissioner of Howrah Municipality started collection of funds by public subscription – to erect town hall – defendant a subscriber – signed his name in subscription book for Rs.100 – on the faith of promised subscriptions, plaintiff entered into a contract with a contractor – defendant did not pay the promised amount – Held, the act of the plaintiff in entering into contract with contractor was done at the desire of the defendant so as to constitute consideration – the promise was “In consideration of your agreeing to enter into a contract to erect, I undertake to supply money for it.”
Gousmohoddin Vs. Appasahib -  Suit filed by landlord L against tenant T for possession of premises and arrears of rent – suit decreed in favour – in execution, attachment order of movable property of T – In consideration of T agreeing not to appeal against the decree, L allowed one month’s time to pay – Held, valid consideration – valid agreement. 

Essentials features of consideration:

1.      Must move at desire of promisor – if done at instance of third party or without desire of promisor – not good consideration.
      Durga Prasad Vs. Baldeo  - On the order of the Collector, plaintiff built shops at own expense – defendants occupied the shops – promised to pay him commission on sales – default by defendents – plaint rejected -  Held, construction by plaintiff not done at the desire of the defendants so as to constitute consideration – it was done at the orders of the  Collector.

2.      May move from promisee or any other person- consideration may move even from a stranger – contract cannot be enforced by stranger to contract even if made for his benefit - but stranger to consideration can sue if party to the contract (privity to contract).
      Chinnaya Vs. Ramayya – old lady A gifted landed property to her daughter – gift deed registered – included condition of payment of annuity of Rs.653 per yer to the plaintiff P (old lady’s sister) -  daughter D executed an Iqrarnama (agreement) with P promising to pay the annuity – default by D – P sued for recovery – Held, consideration had moved from A – also concluded that deed of gift and Iqrarnama executed simultaneously – regarded as one transaction – sufficient consideration for that transaction. 

3.      May be an act or abstinence/forbearance or a return promise – act must not be a legal duty to perform – abstaining is consideration in negative form – may be past, present or future one – may also be a return promise (executory consideration)
      Forbearance to sue, compromise of a disputed claim, composition with creditors is valid consideration.
      Debi Radha Rani Vs. Ram Dass – wife D ready to sue husband for maintenance –husband agreed to pay monthly allowance – wife forborne to sue – Held, wife’s forbearance to sue is valid consideration for husband.
      Compromise of pending suit – good consideration for agreement of compromise – essential that dispute is bona fide.
      Fanindra Narain Roy Vs. Kacheman Bibi  - agreement to accept a new mortgage in substitution of earlier executed one – consideration of not enforcing the earlier mortgage – even though  original executed by one person and substitute by four persons- held to be valid consideration. 

4.      May be past, present or future – may be voluntary or at request.
Examples:        1. A saves B from drowning – B later promises reward to A – valid consideration – enforceable.
                        2. A finds B’s purse – returns it to him – B promises to give A
                        Rs.50 – this is contract.
      Upton Rural District Council Vs. :Powell  - P’s farm did not come under the free service zone of the fire department - fire at P’s farm – P called up Upton Fire Brigade which arrived and put out the fire – implied promise to pay for past act.
      Sindha Shri Ganpat Singh Vs. Abraham – services rendered to a minor at his request – continued after majority at the same request – good consideration for promise to pay.

5.      Need not be adequate– where consent of the promisor is freely given, inadequacy of consideration does not make the contract void – adequacy of consideration is for the parties to consider at the time of making the agreement, and not for the court when it is sought to be enforced.
      Haigh Vs. Brooks  - B promised to pay certain bills to H if  he hand over a guarantee to him – H handed over guarantee – later found to be unenforceable – Held, B received what he asked for – although guarantee for smaller value than expected, valid consideration. 

6.      Must be real and not illusionary - also must be competent and of value
      Hall Vs. Cazenove  - charter party contract – contained clause that particular ship to sail on specified date  - that date already expired when contract entered into – Held, consideration is physically impossible.
      Harvey Vs. Gibbons - A owes Rs.1000 to B – promises to pay Rs.500 to C, who is B’s servant – C promises to discharge A from debt – Legally impossible as C not competent to give valid discharge for a debt due to his master.
      A engages B for certain work – promises to pay ‘reasonable sum’ – promise unenforceable as consideration uncertain.
      Stilk Vs. Myrick  - Two crew members of ship deserted mid-way – captain promised to divide salary of deserters among rest of the crew if they worked the vessel home – Held, they were already under obligation to bring the vessel home – the consideration was illusionary – no contract.

7.      Must be something which promisor not already bound to do: should not under pre-existing legal or contractual obligation – performance of public duty by public servant is not consideration.
Collins Vs. Godefroy  - A received summon for appearance before a trial court – B promised to pay to A compensation for loss of time during attendance in court – Held, A under a duty imposed by law to appear and give evidence – B’s promise was without consideration.
Ramchandra Chintaman Vs. Kalu Raju -  promise to pay Vakil an additional sum if suit successful – Held, Vakil under pre-existing contractual to render the best of his services – the promise for additional sum is devoid of consideration. Person undertakes to do more than contractual or legal duty – valid consideration for promise.

8.      Must not be illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy – must not be unlawful. Napier Vs. National Business Agency Ltd.  – company employed N - weekly wages of £13 and weekly expense allowance of £6 – Held, the expense allowance a device to evade tax – agreement unlawful. 
      Nandlal Vs. Thomas  - A licensed under Excise Act to run liquor shop – Act forbade sale, transfer or sub-lease of licence or creation of partnership in running of shop – A took B into partnership -  Held, agreement void.
      Baivijli Vs. Nansa Nagar  - money given to married woman to obtain divorce from her husband – lender intended to marry the woman – Held, agreement was immoral. 

Doctrine of privity of contract – Only parties to contract can sue and be sued on the contract – stranger to contract cannot sue even if contract is for his benefit and he provided consideration – stranger has no right or obligation – cannot enforce it.
      Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. Vs. Selfridge & Co. Ltd.  – S bought tyres from Dunlop Rubber Co. – sold them to D, a sub-dealer – D agreed not to sell below Dunlop Rubber’s list price – to pay Dunlop Rubber £5 for every tyre undersold -  D undersold two tyres – Dunlop Rubber sued for breach – Held, stranger to contract – cannot recover anything.

Exceptions to the rule “stranger to a contract cannot sue”:

1.      A trust or charge: Beneficiary of a trust or holder of other interest in specific immovable property can enforce it.
      Gandy Vs. Gandy - husband separated from wife – executed separation deed – promised to pay to the trustees all expenses for maintenance of wife – Held, agreement created a trust in favour of wife – can be enforced by her.
      Khwaja Mohd. Khan Vs. Hussaini Begum – A agreed for marriage of his son S with B’s daughter D – in consideration of marriage A agreed to pay to D an allowance of Rs.500 per month in perpetuity – created charge on certain properties for payment – conferred power on D to enforce it – Held, although D not a party to agreement, is entitled to enforce it for recovery of allowance.

2.      Marriage settlement, partition or other family arrangements : beneficiary can sue for enforcement.
      Daropti Vs. Jaspat Rai – J’s wife deserted him because of ill treatment – J entered into agreement with his father-in-law to treat her properly or else pay monthly maintenance – subsequently ill-treated and driven out of house – held, wife entitled to enforce the promise made by J to her father.
      Shuppu Ammal Vs. Subramaniyam  - Partition of joint property – brothers agreed to invest certain sum of money in equal shares for maintenance of their mother – Held, mother entitled to require her sons to make the investment.

3.      Acknowledgement or estoppels- where by conduct, promisor acknowledges himself as agent of third party – estopped from denying it later- binding obligation towards third party.

Example: A receives some money from B to be paid over to C - A admits the receipt to C – C can recover the amount from A who will be considered as agent of B.

4.      Assignment of contract assignee of rights and benefits under contract not involving personal skills can enforce the contract – subject to equities between original parties – e.g. holder in due course of a negotiable instrument can recover the amount even though no contract between him and payer.

5.      Contract entered through agent: Principal gets rights and obligations under contracts entered through agent – provided agent acts within authority and on behalf of principal.

6.      Covenants running with land: purchaser of immovable property with notice of covenants (conditions) created by another agreement affecting the property – bound by the covenants although not a party to original agreement.
      Smith & Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. Vs. River Douglas Catchment Board  - The Board agreed with certain land-owners adjoining a stream to improve and maintain the banks – landlords paid proportionate costs – one landlord sold land to first plaintiff and he to second plaintiff – negligence on part of Board in maintenance of banks – banks burst and land flooded – Held, the whole arrangement for the benefit of land-owners whoever they might be and not merely the parties to the agreement – plaintiff capable to sue the Board.

Contract without consideration is void – Exceptions thereto:

Sec.25 – Agreement made without consideration is void, unless
(1)   it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force, and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in near relation to each other, or unless
(2)   it is promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do; or unless
(3)   It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person so charged or his agent, to pay wholly or in part a debt which cannot be enforced for payment under the law for the limitation of suits. 

Explanation:    1.Nothing in this section shall affect the validity, as between the donor and donee, of any gift actually made. 
2. An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent to the promise was freely given.

1.      Love and affection- agreement has to be in writing – registered under law – out of natural love and affection – parties standing in near relation to each other.

      Ram Dass Vs. Krishan Dev  - a family settlement between cousin brother and sister – to resolve disputes regarding family property – on account of natural love and affection – Held, binding as cousin brother a near relative.
      Venkataswamy Vs. Rangaswamy  - Out of natural love and affection for his brother R, V promises to discharge R’s debt to B – registered agreement – V fails to discharge the debt – R discharges it and sue V to recover the amount – Held, valid agreement covered under Sec.25.
      However, in Rajlukhy Dabee vs. Bhootnath, nearness of relation does not necessarily mean natural love and affection.
      Husband promised to pay a fixed sum of money to wife every month for her separate residence and maintenance – registered document – document referred to certain quarrels and disagreements between the two – Held, no trace of love and affection between the parties whose quarrels had compelled them to separate – Held, agreement void for want of consideration.

2.      Compensation for past voluntary service: a promise to wholly or partly compensate a person – who has already voluntarily done something for promisor – enforceable
      Karam Chand Vs. Basant Kaur  - goods supplied to minor - promise made after attaining majority to pay for the supplies – Held, enforceable.

3.      Promise to pay a time-barred debt – must be in writing – signed by the debtor or his specially or generally authorised agent – for payment of whole or part of the debt – the debt must have been recoverable but for the law of limitation – not necessary that new promise should expressly mention the time-barred debt.
      Debi Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prasad – acknowledgement of debt – promise to pay with interest – Held, agreement with promise to pay within the meaning of Sec.25.
      A take over of the assets and liabilities of a business house does not amount to a promise to pay a time-barred debt. 

4.      Completed gift – Sec. 25 shall not affect the validity of any gift actually made.

5.      Agency- No consideration is necessary to create an agency.


6.      Charitable subscription – where promisee on the strength of the promise makes commitments.  E.g. Kedar Nath Vs. Gauri Mohamed  

No comments:

Post a Comment