News By/Courtesy: Nikshetaa Jain | 30 May 2020 17:29pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Durga Prasad v Baldeo: Shops were not build at the desire of the promisor, the shop occupants
  • Kedarnath v Gorie Mohammed: plaintiff's act of entering into a contract was done at the promisor's desire.
  • Doraswami Iyer v Arunachala Iyer: renovation was not started as the desire of the defendant.

 
Consideration is defined in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as follows: "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 abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence is called a consideration for the promisee." The act of abstinence which is to be considered as consideration for the promise must be done at or promised to be done at the desire of the promisor. Thus, the consideration is to be given at the desire of the promisor. 
In Durga Prasad v Baldeo, the plaintiff built at his own expense individual shops in a Bazar on the order of the Town Collector. The defendants came to occupy those shops. In consideration of the plaintiff having spent money in the construction, the shop occupants promised him a commission on articles sold through them. The court held that since construction was not 'at the desire of the promisor, the defendant, in this case, it cannot be considered as consideration. The act was a result of the Collector's order and not the defendant's. 
In Errington v Errington & Woods, the owner of a house had mortgaged it. The house was in the occupation of his son and daughter in law. He told them that they would become the owners of the house if they paid off the mortgage installments. So, they commenced payments. It was held that the promisor, the father, was bound by the promise. 
In Kedarnath v Gorie Mohammed, a subscription was required to be raised from the public to create a town hall in Howrah. The commissioners of the municipality started raising funds by public subscription. The defendant subscribed to the fund for Rs. 100. On the faith of the promised subscription, the plaintiff entered into a contract to build the hall. But the defendant contended that there as no consideration for him. The court held that the plaintiff's act of entering into a contract was done at the promisor's desire.
In Doraswami Iyer v Arunachala Iyer, the repair of a temple was in progress. As the work proceeded, more money was required. The subscriptions were invited to raise money. The defendant put an amount of Rs. 125 on the subscription list. It was held that no recovery was allowed as the renovation was not started as the desire of the defendant.

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT INTEND TO HURT THE SENTIMENTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, COMMUNITY, SECT, OR RELIGION ETCETRA. THIS ARTICLE IS BASED PURELY ON THE AUTHOR'S PERSONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) AND OTHER RELATED LAWS BEING  FORCE IN INDIA FOR THE TIME BEING.

Section Editor: Pushpit Singh | 03 Jun 2020 14:08pm IST


Tags : #consideration, section 2(d)

Latest News







Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.