(A) An Agreement Without Consideration Is Void. Comment

The reason why contracts require the exchange of an object of value is to distinguish a legal agreement from a generous gift or a promise made by one party to another, none of which is legally enforceable. For example, if your friend mows your lawn without asking for anything in return, it doesn`t count as a contract because you didn`t promise a quid pro quo. If your friend promises to mow your lawn but doesn`t, you can`t sue for damages. Sometimes a contract is cancelled by the court because it is not considered. This usually occurs when (3) a person is in writing and signed by the person or his agent, usually or specially authorized on that behalf, to pay, in whole or in part, debts which the creditor could have imposed payment, but for the right to limit remedies. In each of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. While a deal may seem unfair in hindsight, the court will generally not determine whether the value of the consideration is proportionate. The exception is when the gap is so large that it is in bad faith. In this case, the court may find that the contract is unsured because the party who offered the consideration of a much lower value acted unfairly.

In each of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. Contract law defines „reflection“ as an answer to the question „How do you benefit from the performance of the contract?“ Both parties must take into account the fact that the agreement is legally binding. For example, if you buy a jacket from your favorite store, the garment is the consideration you will receive while your payment is the consideration that will be received from the store. (f) A agrees to sell a horse worth 1,000 to 10 Rs. A has freely accepted the agreement. The agreement is a contract despite the inadequacy of the counterparty. 5. Agency: According to Section 185, no reflection is required to create an agency. Example: Venkatswamy (vs) Rangaswamy (1903):Facts: By a recorded agreement, „V“ promises, because of nature, love and affection for his brother „R“, to pay debts to `B`. If „V“ does not discharge the debt. Verdict: „R“ can unload it, then attack „V“ to recover the sum. It is therefore a valid agreement.2.