Pursuant to section 185 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, no consideration is required to establish an agency. Both in English law and in the Indian Contract Act, consideration for an enforceable contract is indispensable. It is an act or abstinence from the promise or from another person at the request of the promiser. Contemplation can be past, future or executory. Under the Indian Contract Act 1872, the definition of consideration in section 2(d), consideration may be provided by «the promise or any other person» as long as it is made «at the request of the promiser». Thus, if the promisor has no objections, the counterpart of a promising person or another person can move away from another person. There are some cases where contracts are enforceable without consideration. Radhakrishna Joshi v. Syndicated bank, In this case, a loan was paid to the defendant`s son as part of the independent loan, the father executed documents in which he committed and confirmed to pay. He was held responsible even though he was not a guarantor. The case was decided without exception, as nature obliges parents to take care of the children. There were also reflections because he bought his family peace by saving the seizure of his sons` estate.
Another essential and most important element of an agreement is consideration. According to section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, «If, at the request of the promiser, the promising or any other person has done something, or abstains or abstains or abstains or promises to do something, such an act or abstinence or promised act is called in return for the promise» An agreement cannot be entered into without consideration. For example, A agrees to sell his car for free to B. It is not an agreement, because there is no quid pro quo. In accordance with section 10 and section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration is indispensable in a valid contract. Simply put, no consideration, no contract. Therefore, you can only enforce an agreement and contract if there is consideration. In the case of Lee v.
Muggeridge has been established that promises are not kept without consideration, because they are free and, in the case of Rann v. . . .