It is important to note that past shares do not constitute consideration unless one of the following situations applies: The basis of contract law is based on the reciprocity of the consideration. Each party who enters into a contract is bound by a benefit and an expense. Consideration in the Contracts Act is a benefit to one party (for example, the party receives money) and a burden to the other (who pays the money). A contract is not legally binding without consideration from each party. A tip cannot be enforced by law. An example of advice is «A promises to pay B an amount of Rs 1000 without B having to pay anything in response». Since it is a gratuitous promise where one person promises to do something without promises from the other person, the payment of Rs. 100 is not legally enforceable because it is not supported by any consideration. So there is no counterpart here, that is, no contract. Certain elements must be fulfilled for the consideration to be considered to have sufficient legal value. Without this legal sufficiency, the consideration as well as the entire contract will be considered null and void. In Labriola v. Pollard Group, an employee, Labriola, sought a declaratory judgment against his former employer because a legal controversy had arisen but no damage had yet occurred.
Labriola attempted to rescind a non-compete obligation because he felt he was not receiving anything in return. The Washington State Supreme Court agreed, noting that only his employer had benefited from the agreement. According to contract law, there must be consideration and bring both advantages and disadvantages to both parties. In this case, only Pollard benefited from the new anti-competitive agreement. Labriola accepted essentially the same terms of the original contract: salary and commission, arbitrary employment, and non-competition. The employer also did not receive any new obligations. In fact, Pollard added a new clause requiring Labriola to cover all attorneys` fees and costs in the event of a contract dispute. In general, a conditional consideration is a valid consideration. According to section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872, considerations are considered valid if they have the following characteristics: In general, past consideration is not valid consideration and has no legal value. Past considerations are considerations that have already flowed from the promise to the promisor.
That is, the promisor`s action or tolerance precedes the promiser`s promise. Past considerations cannot therefore be relied on as a basis for claiming damages.  During the review by a higher court, it was agreed that the offer to maintain employment in Labriola only at will in exchange for the signing of a restrictive anti-competitive contract did not constitute sufficient consideration and that the contract was therefore unenforceable. Labriola won. If Pollard Group had offered Labriola something in exchange for the restrictive covenant, the court might have seen things differently. The doctrine of consideration requires that any contract be supported by some form of consideration. However, a partial payment of the debt is not a good consideration for the contract. Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties to a contract. It can be money, job performance, goods or other goods. Both contracting parties must receive consideration for a contract to be valid. Although we have tried here to present the basics of consideration in contracts, it can be very complex.
A few months later, Pollard Group changed its commission structure and demanded a higher sales quota so sellers like Labriola could earn commissions. Labriola realized that this new distribution structure would actually reduce his income by 25%, so he started looking for a job with other printers in the area. When the Pollard group learned that Labriola was looking for another job, they immediately fired him. When the pollard group learned that one of its competitors would hire Labriola, it informed the other company of the non-compete obligation. Labriola was no longer hired by the other company. The reason why both exist in common law jurisdictions is considered by leading scholars to be the result of the combination of two different sons by 19th century judges: first, the requirement of consideration was at the heart of the Assumpsit trial, which had arisen in the Middle Ages and remained the normal trial for breach of a simple treaty in England and Wales until 1884. when the old forms of action have been abolished; second, the concept of agreement between two or more parties as the essential legal and moral basis of the treaty was used in all legal systems by the French writer Pothier from the 18th century onwards. == References ===== External links ===* Official website The latter corresponded well to the fashionable theories of will of the time, in particular John Stuart Mill`s influential ideas on free will, and was grafted onto the traditional requirement of customary law to justify an action for acceptance.  Offer and acceptance go hand in hand. One party makes an offer and the other party must accept that offer.
In contract law, the value of offer and acceptance is. For example, someone offers a friend $100 for a used laptop. If the friend accepts the offer, the $100 is in exchange for the laptop from their point of view, and the laptop is used in exchange for the person`s $100. An exception to this rule exists if there is an obligation to a third party. An action taken before making a promise to pay or granting any other benefit can sometimes be in exchange for the promise. For this to be true, three conditions must be met (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long ): Consider the above situation of the uncle. If the same uncle had instead made the following offer to his 13-year-old nephew: «If you don`t smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, curse or play cards for money before your 21st birthday, then I`ll pay you $5,000.» On the day of the nephew`s 21st birthday, he asks the uncle to pay, and this time the nephew can win in the next trial.  Although the promise not to drink and gamble alcohol before the age of 21 was not a valuable quid pro quo (it was already prohibited by law), most states allow smoking and swearing at 18, while some consider it not illegal at any age.