Exception – a prior consideration may be a good consideration if (a) at the request of the promiser (b) the parties have understood that the act is remunerated and (c) if the promise had been made before the act, it would have been enforceable. The situation is different when the promise is contractually linked to a third party for the fulfillment of the commitment. In a case where the contractual duty of the promised is due to a third party, the fulfillment (or promise of fulfillment) of that duty is a good counterpart to the promise of the promise. It follows that reflection must move from promise, but from promisor to promisor. For example, if Promisor (A) (B) promises to pay a sum of money in exchange for the promise from A to B, this will be a good consideration. However, if Promisor (A) (C) asks to make a payment in return for the promise from A to B, this is not a good consideration (there is no disadvantage for B in such a case). In the case of joint commitments, it is sufficient that the consideration be made by one or other of the parties. For a recent Supreme Court discussion on this subject, however, there have been significant restrictions on doctrine – this rule that paying a lower sum that day cannot be a satisfaction for the whole – known as the rule in Pinnels – was finally established by Foakes v Beer. (4) In view of the defendant`s conduct, it is ruthless for the defendant to be free to ignore the promise. (b) There was only one defense against a claim by the promiser in violation of the promise – it could not be claimed. (3) The applicant shall avail himself of it to his detriment; and as I said above, the counterpart can be anything set by the promiser, unless it is illegal. However, the recital must have “value” in the eyes of the law – that is, it must exist.

Therefore, an illusory enterprise cannot be a good consideration. (a) it applied only if the parties already had an existing contractual relationship; and (b) whether the doctrine of debt waiver works (this is not an exception per se; the doctrine is supposed to enforce promises in limited circumstances where it would be unfair not to do so – but it is not a real substitute for a quid pro quo. See below. It is for the promiser to fix the counterpart of his promise (directly or indirectly), not for the promise to offer something and qualify it as a counterparty – however, as stated above, it can take virtually any form and above all must not be of comparable value to the promise for which it is made. As mentioned above, the counterpart is the price set by the promiser for the promise made….