Therefore, when a person is appointed as an agent, his or her appointment agreement is valid without consideration. An agent receives the commission in remuneration, but no consideration is necessary if the appointment agreement is made. 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».[1] 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. (f) A agrees to sell a horse worth 1,000 for paragraph 10. A`s agreement was given voluntarily. The contract is a contract, regardless of the insufficiency of the consideration. Thus, if B A treated during his illness, but refused to accept payment from A; Being a friend out of gratitude promises to pay ₹1,000 to B`s son D, the agreement between A and D is not valid for lack of consideration, as it does not fall under this exception. (g) A agrees to sell a horse valued at 1,000 for paragraph 10.

A denies that his consent to the agreement was given voluntarily. Example: A teaches the child of B at the request of B. After six months, B undertakes to pay A the sum of ₹600/- for his teaching. For B`s promise, A`s achievements are seen as a past reflection. While an agreement may seem unfair a posteriori, the court will generally not decide whether the value of the consideration is proportionate. The exception is when the discrepancy is such that it constitutes bad faith. The complainant acknowledged that he and his brother had been in poor conditions. Despite the tense relations, the General Court decided that this is only a case to be applied to Article 25(1). The accused had such a natural love and affection for his brother that he was willing to give him his possessions to be fired by him.