In Re McArdle, a father in his will gave his house to his five sons after their mother`s death to divide it equally. During the mother`s lifetime, one of the testator`s sons and his wife lived in this house. At that time, the woman caused an expense of £488 to make improvements to the house. Subsequently, the five sons signed a document to share the amount spent on such improvements. After the mother`s death, they refused to pay the costs except for her husband. The Court of Appeal held that, since the consumption had been made before the report was signed, it had not been taken into consideration and the promise could therefore not be authorized. Andrew sells a mobile phone worth RM1,000 for RM10 to Ben. Here, despite the insufficient amount paid for the mobile phone, there is a valid contract. A is a doctor. B is a patient. B was taken to A`s pharmacy. A performed his services for ten days. After ten days, B promises to compensate A for the services provided to him.
This is a past consideration. A can recover the promised amount. Another important aspect of consideration is consideration in the past. Past considerations imply that the consideration of a promise was given in advance and the promise is made from there. For example, A lost his dog and B found the dog and returned it to A, then A promised to pay Rs.100, and in this case it will be a past consideration since the act of finding the dog took place before each agreement. Knowledge of past considerations is essential because the laws of past consideration are different in India and England. Section 25(2) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines that the consideration made is valid in India. But in English law, past consideration is not valid, which causes a lot of burdens, as if an individual were paying for past action, so he only has to consider past contemplation as gratitude. Anyway, there is one exception. If a measure is taken at the request of the principal, this measure is treated as a good consideration, although the donor`s promise is given only after the action has been taken. In Lau Ngik Ping & Anor v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia [1992] 3 CLJ 1437, the case concerned borrowers who had applied to the defendants for a loan to be secured by a charge on the land belonging to the plaintiffs.
The loan in question was released by the defendants one day after the loan agreement was signed. The crux of the dispute, however, was that the DSU was repealed a month later. At that time, the applicants claimed that the loan had been released without any guarantees, arguing that this was a previous review. Past counterparties cannot be included in a contract, mainly because they did not benefit the proprotant or posed a risk to the provocateur. For a contract to be valid, it must necessarily include consideration. In a two-person contract, for example, both parties must promise something, whether it is a certain action or an agreement to pay a certain amount of money. For example, imagine that you go for a walk and you see another person fall and get injured. They then rush to help the injured person, take them home and help them heal. To show appreciation, the other person promises to pay you $1,000. The help you provided to the injured person would be considered a past consideration.
Although you were not legally obligated to help them, you felt morally obligated, and your fulfillment of this moral duty led you to be paid. English law does not recognize a past consideration. In English, legal considerations can be present or future, but not past. The consideration of the past is not taken into account at all in English law. Therefore, an agreement based on prior considerations is void. The consideration may be enforceable, but cannot be adopted. The second exception to the rule that a promise based on moral or past considerations is unenforceable is a promise to fulfill a questionable obligation. This promise is enforceable despite the absence of new consideration, as long as the new promise is not subject to the same defence that made the original undertaking voidable. An example: in the case of Siva Saran Kesava Prasad, a legal advisor was trained and, at her request, acted as a supervisor of a property manager, whose estate owner instead guaranteed a pension. It was found that there had been an acceptable consideration in the past.
A owes Rs 1,000,000 to B, but the debt is time-barred under the statute of limitations. However, if A B promises in writing to pay 50,000, this will be considered a valid contract. Nowadays, there is a growing belief that promises made for the past can be implemented even if they do not meet one of the three traditional criteria. The current view is that a promise can be applied if it is a material benefit and the promise of benefit has been fulfilled after review. A provided some services for B in June. In July, B promised to pay A Rs. 500. The consideration of A is a past consideration. A binding contract requires consideration, sometimes called the “price of a promise” or part of a “negotiated exchange.” One party gives something valuable to a counterparty or accepts a disadvantage in order to make a promise from the other party.
Consideration is required for the formation of a contract. The consideration may take the form of a monetary payment, a delivery of goods, a promise of monetary payment. As a general rule, past consideration is not considered consideration in a contract. For a contract to be valid, the consideration must be included at the time of conclusion of the contract. Traditionally, a promise made as a result of previous considerations cannot be enforced in court. Some exceptions to this rule are: The third exception to the rule that promises based on moral or past considerations are unenforceable are promises to pay debts settled by bankruptcy. In contract law, a promise to pay a debt settled by bankruptcy is enforceable. Such a promise is treated in the same way as a promise to pay a debt that was prescribed by the limitation period.
However, unlike the limitation periods for settling debts that are prescribed by the limitation period, States do not require that a promise of payment of debts discharged by bankruptcy be made in writing to be enforceable. See Zabella v. Pakel, 242 F.2d 452 (7. Cir. 1957). In Roscarla, Thomas bought a horse A to B. The price was paid and the horse was brought home. After that, A and B met at a place where B said the horse was young, healthy and free of vices. But when he approached the horse. he was hit hard. A then filed a lawsuit for promise. It was found that the consideration provided at the time of the purchase contract was not consideration for the subsequent commitment and that the commitment was therefore unenforceable.
In the case of Razak and Salma, Razak saved Salma`s child, who fell into the water while Razak was walking around the lake. Salma then promised to give Samad RM2 as a reward for his efforts and asked Razak to call him after a week to get the money back. After a week, Razak called Salma to claim the reward, but Salma told Razak that she would not pay him because there was no valid contract between them. It is apparent from the case that Razak`s act of saving Salma`s child is a past consideration based on the fact that a past consideration relates to a voluntary act performed by a party before making a promise. In this case, Razak saved Salma`s child before Salma promised to reward him, making Razak`s action a bygone consideration. Although the examination passed is a valid consideration from a Malaysian legal point of view, it must be made at the request or request of the promisor in accordance with section 2 (d) of the Act. In this case, Razak`s voluntary act of saving Salma`s child was not at Salma`s request or request, which is the promise, making it an invalid past consideration. .