Doctrine of Consideration



Doctrine of Consideration

Introduction

No doctrine of the common law of contract has been longer settled or more carefully developed than consideration. Yet none has proved more intractable to theoretical justification. This article suggests that the problem is not with consideration but rather with the theories that defend or challenge it. The main idea is that the theories are not often equipped to explain the doctrine because they invoke functions and purposes that do not belong to the specific kind of relation that consideration necessarily establishes. In contrast with current approaches, the paper argues that consideration is not a control device that, for various policy reasons, negatively excludes certain prima facie enforceable promises. Rather, it is constitutive of a kind of interaction that is the only basis on which parties may reasonably be held to have undertaken fully contractual obligations enforceable by expectation remedies.

Discussion

The doctrine of consideration holds that, standing alone, a promise is categorically insufficient to generate an expectation-based enforceable contractual obligation, no matter how seriously and unconditionally it is intended or how carefully and deliberately it is made, and despite the fact that it may be recorded in writing or memorialized in some other way. To be enforceable, a promise must be made in return for a legally valid consideration that can be either a reciprocal promise or act that is requested by the promisor and provided by the promisee in return as part of a single transaction of the consideration. Where the consideration is a counter-promise, there is a bilateral contract formed at the moment the mutual promises are made. If the consideration is a reciprocal act, a unilateral contract is formed when the act is executed. Consideration is not the same as just any motive or reason for the promise; it must move from the promisee; and it must be of some value in the eye of the law. Understood in this way, consideration is unequivocally a necessary condition of contract formation and enforceability.

On the other hand, exploration is a kind of value exchanged between the parties. This "value" can be affirmative to refrain from doing something also called patience, or to make a promise in return. That should be enough, what are the reasonable conditions of the contract, and may not be illegal, as a bribe. Regardless of type of consideration needed in a given market, a form of payment is usually necessary to make valid and legally binding contract. But because the law is intended to promote justice, the courts have sometimes applied the doctrine of estoppels debt. So even if the agreement does not apply, the law may impose a promise if the necessary elements (e.g., the use of reasonable and damage) are shown. However, at the contract and thus the clarity of the top treatment is essential. Doctrine of estoppels debt is effectively limited to cases where it is necessary to prevent injustice.

This means it is used less often than if a person applies to the ...