From a previous perspective, the courts include an act that could have served as consideration if it had been negotiated at the time, but would not have been agreed upon. For example, Mrs. Ace`s dog, Fluffy, escapes from her lover`s apartment at dusk. Robert finds Fluffy, sees Mrs. Ace, who is looking for her own pet, and gives him Fluffy. She said, “Oh, thank you for founding my dear dog. Come tomorrow morning and I will give you fifty dollars as a reward. The next day, Robert walks by Mrs. Ace`s apartment, but she says, “Well, I don`t know. Fluffy soiled the carpet again last night. I think a twenty-dollar reward might be plentiful.

Robert can`t raise the fifty dollars. Although Mrs. Ace may have a moral obligation to pay him and keep her promise, there was no consideration for it. Robert did not suffer any legal disadvantage; his contribution – finding the dog – was paid before their promise, and his previous consideration is not valid to support a contract. There was no negotiated exchange. Both English law and the Indian Contract Act stipulate that consideration for an enforceable contract is essential. It is an act or abstinence from the promise or another person at the request of the celebrity. Consideration can be past, future or enforceable. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the definition of consideration in paragraph 2(d), consideration may be provided by “the promise or any other person” provided that it is provided “at the request of the promiser”.[1] Thus, the consideration of promise or another person, if the celebrity has no objections, can be removed from another person. There are some cases where contracts are enforceable without consideration.

In Curie v. Misa, the term was defined as follows: “A valid consideration within the meaning of the law may consist of either a given right, interest, forbearance, disadvantage, loss or liability given, suffered or assumed by the other.” (f) A undertakes to sell a horse worth Rs. . .