Is the father's promise enforceable despite the absence of consideration?

No, because a promise to transfer property always requires monetary consideration to be valid.

Yes, because any promise made by a parent to a child is automatically enforceable regardless of formalities.

No, because Section 25(1) applies only to promises between spouses, not parents and children.

Can the mother's sister, who provided no consideration herself, argue that the daughter's promise was nonetheless supported by valid consideration?

No, because consideration must always move directly from the person seeking to enforce the promise.

No, because gifts of property can never form valid consideration for a subsequent promise.

Yes, but only because the sister is related by blood to the mother.

Is Vishal's promise enforceable?

No, because once a debt becomes time-barred, no subsequent promise can revive it under any circumstances.

No, because such a promise requires registration in addition to being written and signed.

Yes, but only if the friend also provides fresh consideration for Vishal's renewed promise.

Is Meera's promise to pay Sanjay enforceable?

No, because Sanjay acted without being asked, so there was no consideration at the desire of the promisor.

No, because promises to pay for repair work must be made before the work begins to be enforceable.

Yes, but only if Sanjay is a licensed plumber.

Is Tanya correct that the sale is void for inadequate consideration?

Yes, because consideration must always be roughly equal to the market value of the subject matter.

Yes, because friendship cannot form a valid basis for commercial transactions.

No, because motorcycles are exempt from the requirement of consideration under the Sale of Goods Act.

Can C succeed in a direct suit against B?

Yes, because Indian law allows consideration to move from a third party, and this automatically allows any third-party beneficiary to sue.

Yes, because any person named as a beneficiary in a contract automatically becomes a party to it.

No, because oral contracts naming a third-party beneficiary are void under Indian law.

Is the client's promise to pay extra enforceable?

Yes, because any renegotiated price during the course of a contract is automatically binding.

Yes, because contractors are entitled to extra payment whenever a project is completed on time.

No, because construction contracts cannot be modified once signed.

Is Kabir's promise to pay supported by valid consideration?

No, because forbearance to sue can never amount to consideration under the Indian Contract Act.

No, because Kabir received no direct personal benefit from Deepa's forbearance.

Yes, but only because Kabir and Irfan are related as brothers.

Can Ritu enforce Naveen's promise?

Yes, because all promises made in good faith are enforceable under Indian contract law.

Yes, because Naveen's generosity itself constitutes sufficient consideration.

No, because gratuitous promises are criminal offences under the Indian Contract Act.

Is this agreement enforceable as a valid contract?

Yes, because both parties freely and knowingly consented to the terms of the agreement.

Yes, because Section 23 only voids agreements involving amounts exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.

No, but only because the agreement was not reduced to writing.

Legal Reasoning · Micro-Test

Consideration in Contract Law

No consideration, no contract - except when the Indian Contract Act says otherwise, and those exceptions are exactly where CLAT tries to catch aspirants off guard.

10 questions · 5 minutes · instant scoring

What this topic actually tests

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consideration broadly: when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence is called consideration. Two features distinguish Indian law from English common law here. First, consideration need not move from the promisee alone - it may move from a third person, so long as it moves at the promisor's desire; this is why a stranger to the consideration can, in Indian law, sometimes enforce a promise, unlike under strict English privity rules. Second, and separately, is the doctrine of privity of contract, which generally still prevents a person who is not a party to the contract from suing on it, subject to recognised exceptions such as trusts, family arrangements creating a charge in favour of a beneficiary, and assignment of contractual benefits. Section 10 requires lawful consideration (and a lawful object) for an agreement to be a contract, and Section 23 voids agreements whose consideration or object is unlawful. Section 25 lays down the general rule that an agreement without consideration is void, but carves out three important exceptions: (1) a written and registered agreement made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other; (2) a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something the promisor was legally compellable to do; and (3) a written and signed promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. Explanation 2 to Section 25 further clarifies that an agreement is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate, though inadequacy may be relevant evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. CLAT questions on this topic typically present a fact pattern and ask whether it falls within one of these Section 25 exceptions or fails for want of consideration.

The common trap on this topic

Aspirants frequently apply the blanket rule 'no consideration, no contract' without checking whether the fact pattern fits one of the three specific Section 25 exceptions - natural love and affection (with the added requirements of writing, registration, and near relation), past voluntary service, or a written promise to pay a time-barred debt - all of which validate an agreement despite the absence of ordinary consideration. A second, subtler trap is conflating privity of consideration with privity of contract: Indian law departs from the English rule by allowing consideration to move from a person other than the promisee, but this does not automatically mean that a total stranger to the contract can sue upon it - the separate doctrine of privity of contract still generally bars strangers from suing, subject to narrow exceptions like trusts and family settlements. Students also wrongly assume that unequal or token consideration invalidates a contract; inadequacy of consideration alone does not void an agreement, though it may be a relevant factor if fraud or undue influence is separately alleged.

FAQ

Does a promise made purely out of love and affection require consideration to be enforceable?

It can be enforceable without ordinary consideration if it satisfies Section 25(1): the promise must be in writing, registered, and made between parties standing in a near relation to each other, expressed on account of natural love and affection.

Can a person who is not a party to a contract but for whose benefit it was made sue upon it?

Generally, privity of contract bars strangers from suing, but Indian courts recognise exceptions such as trusts, marriage or family settlements creating a beneficial interest, and assignment of contractual rights, allowing the beneficiary to enforce the promise in those specific situations.

Is a contract void just because one party got a much better bargain than the other?

No. Mere inadequacy of consideration does not by itself void an agreement under Explanation 2 to Section 25, though a court may consider it as evidence when deciding a separate claim of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Keep practising

Ready to see the full picture?

This micro-test covers one topic. The full CLAT diagnostic covers all five sections in 30 minutes and gives you a section-wise breakdown of where you actually stand.

Take the Full Diagnostic →