Consideration for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage carefully and answer the question

It is a well-settled rule of English Law that “Consideration must move from the promisee alone”. If it is furnished by any other person and not by the promisee himself, the promisee becomes "stranger to consideration", therefore, cannot enforce the promise. This is known as the doctrine of 'Privity of Consideration'. It means that the Act or abstinence or promise constituting the consideration must be done or made by the promisee himself at the request of the promisor (English Law). But the words “promisee or any other person” given in the definition of consideration under Section 2[d] of the Indian Contract Act indicate that consideration need not move from the promisee alone but may proceed from a 3rd person on behalf of the promisee. To that extent, the Indian Contract Act has departed from the rule of English Law. The definition of 'Consideration' under the Indian Law is, therefore, wider than that in the English Law. The rule of Privity of Consideration is not at all applicable in India; in view of the clear language used in Section 2(d), it is not necessary that consideration should be furnished by the promisee only. Here in India, a promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it, and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the "promisee or another person.” The leading authority is the decision of the Madras High Court in Chinniya V. Ramaya [(1882) 4 Mad 137]. The rule in India is that consideration shall move from the promisee or any other person. Secondly, failure to keep a promise would have deprived the plaintiff ‘P’ of an amount which he was already receiving from the old lady (before the gift of the property was made) and if a promise causes some loss to the promisee that is sufficient consideration by the promisee. Thirdly, the deed of gift and the defendant's promise to pay the annuity were executed simultaneously on the same day and, therefore, they should be regarded as one transaction, and there was sufficient consideration for that transaction. Therefore defendant 'B' was bound to pay. Although the defendant contended that since the plaintiff 'P' himself had furnished no consideration, he had no right of action against her to claim annuity, i.e., the defendant pleaded, Privity of Consideration of English Law. But her action/suit was not accepted by the Court, and it was held that the English doctrine of Privity of Consideration is not applicable in India.

 Question

A enters into a contract with B and asks C to pay consideration to B on his behalf; then such contract would be:

Read the following passage carefully and answer the question

It is a well-settled rule of English Law that “Consideration must move from the promisee alone”. If it is furnished by any other person and not by the promisee himself, the promisee becomes "stranger to consideration", therefore, cannot enforce the promise. This is known as the doctrine of 'Privity of Consideration'. It means that the Act or abstinence or promise constituting the consideration must be done or made by the promisee himself at the request of the promisor (English Law). But the words “promisee or any other person” given in the definition of consideration under Section 2[d] of the Indian Contract Act indicate that consideration need not move from the promisee alone but may proceed from a 3rd person on behalf of the promisee. To that extent, the Indian Contract Act has departed from the rule of English Law. The definition of 'Consideration' under the Indian Law is, therefore, wider than that in the English Law. The rule of Privity of Consideration is not at all applicable in India; in view of the clear language used in Section 2(d), it is not necessary that consideration should be furnished by the promisee only. Here in India, a promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it, and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the "promisee or another person.” The leading authority is the decision of the Madras High Court in Chinniya V. Ramaya [(1882) 4 Mad 137]. The rule in India is that consideration shall move from the promisee or any other person. Secondly, failure to keep a promise would have deprived the plaintiff ‘P’ of an amount which he was already receiving from the old lady (before the gift of the property was made) and if a promise causes some loss to the promisee that is sufficient consideration by the promisee. Thirdly, the deed of gift and the defendant's promise to pay the annuity were executed simultaneously on the same day and, therefore, they should be regarded as one transaction, and there was sufficient consideration for that transaction. Therefore defendant 'B' was bound to pay. Although the defendant contended that since the plaintiff 'P' himself had furnished no consideration, he had no right of action against her to claim annuity, i.e., the defendant pleaded, Privity of Consideration of English Law. But her action/suit was not accepted by the Court, and it was held that the English doctrine of Privity of Consideration is not applicable in India.

 Question

Raj transferred Rs.10 Lakh to Rakesh to hold it in trust for his son named Aman, however after the death of Raj, Rakesh refused to pay Raj's son the amount, Decide.

Passage-VI

In Mercantile law, the term 'consideration' is used in the sense of quid pro quo which in turn means 'something in return'. This 'something' may be some benefit,. right, interest, or profit that may accrue to one party or it may be some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility upon the other party. This explanation of consideration was given in a very popular English case of Currie v. Misa. Another simple and good description of 'consideration' is available in Sir Pollock's definition. In his book 'Pollock on Contracts', he says, "Consideration is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable ".

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration as when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain porn doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor; To make a contract binding and enforceable, it is not sufficient that there is a consideration but also that consideration has been supplied at the desire of the promisor. Thus, where an act is done at the desire of a third party and not the promisor, that act cannot constitute valid consideration.

Question:

Dikshit constructed a shopping complex at the instance of the Mayor of the city. The occupants of the shops in the said shopping complex promised to pay Dikshit a fixed amount of commission on articles sold through their shops. The Shop owners later refused to pay any amount to Dikshit, he filed a suit against the shop owners for breach of contract. Decide

Read the given passage and answer the following question

In Mercantile law, the term 'consideration' is used in the sense of quid pro quo which in turn means 'something in return'. This 'something' may be some benefit,. right, interest, or profit that may accrue to one party or it may be some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility upon the other party. This explanation of consideration was given in a very popular English case of Currie v. Misa. Another simple and good description of 'consideration' is available in Sir Pollock's definition. In his book 'Pollock on Contracts', he says, "Consideration is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable ".

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration as when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain porn doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor; To make a contract binding and enforceable, it is not sufficient that there is a consideration but also that consideration has been supplied at the desire of the promisor. Thus, where an act is done at the desire of a third party and not the promisor, that act cannot constitute valid consideration.

Question:

X, a minor, was given the benefit of certain services by the plaintiff. The plaintiff rendered those services, not voluntarily but at the desire of X. These services were continued even after the majority at the request of X who subsequently promised to pay an annuity to the plaintiff. 

Read the given passage and answer the following question

In Mercantile law, the term 'consideration' is used in the sense of quid pro quo which in turn means 'something in return'. This 'something' may be some benefit,. right, interest, or profit that may accrue to one party or it may be some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility upon the other party. This explanation of consideration was given in a very popular English case of Currie v. Misa. Another simple and good description of 'consideration' is available in Sir Pollock's definition. In his book 'Pollock on Contracts', he says, "Consideration is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable ".

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration as when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain porn doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor; To make a contract binding and enforceable, it is not sufficient that there is a consideration but also that consideration has been supplied at the desire of the promisor. Thus, where an act is done at the desire of a third party and not the promisor, that act cannot constitute valid consideration.

Question:

Sikander promises to pay an existing debt punctually if Bakhtawar, the creditor, gives him, some discount. The discount is-

A requested B to help him get a pardon from the president. B put in efforts, travelled up to the president and made his points. His request was not sanctioned. A promised to pay him for the same. Later he refused to do so. B who is plaintiff sued him in a court of law. Decide?