In accordance with Article 2, point (e), of the Treaty Act of 1872, “any promise and series of promises constituting mutual consideration”[1] is considered an agreement. However, this simple definition gives some ambiguity. The definition says that every promise is an agreement, but what is a promise? Point 2 (b) of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872 states that if the person to whom the proposal is submitted gives his or her compliant opinion, it is said that the proposal will be adopted. A proposal, if accepted, becomes a promise.┬áIn other words, a promise, if accepted by all parties in an agreement, becomes an agreement. To reach an agreement, one party would have to submit a proposal to the second part and the second party would have to accept it. A “accepted proposal” ensues. This adopted proposal becomes a promise and, if this promise is adopted by all members in an agreement, it will become an agreement. An agreement is equal to the offer plus acceptance. There must be an offer from one party and acceptance from another party. Such an agreement, if legally applicable, is a contract. The main difference between the agreement and the contract is that an agreement must be socially accepted.

It does not need to be legally applicable. For example, A B says he will give B a chocolate if he attends a party. It is socially acceptable, but it is not a contract. This first exception stipulates that an agreement can be written and recorded, but such an agreement should be made out of love and affection. In addition, in an agreement, the parties should be close to their loved ones. But who is this close relative? What is natural love and affection? The close relative meaning, even if not specifically defined, includes those that are bound by blood and marriage, and natural love and affection is the degree of love and instinctive affection between the parties that are almost related. A and B are brothers. According to his will, after his death, his father A appointed the sole owner of his property. B files proceedings against A to assert his right to property, but loses the case. A and B reach a reciprocal decision in which A agrees to transfer half of the assets to his brother and to record a document of this action.

Finally, A failed to live up to his promise and B filed a lawsuit to recover his interest in the property. The court found that, because the agreement was based on natural love and affection, no consideration was applicable and that John had the right to recover his share. The commitment to compensate all or part of the voluntary service for the promisor can be implemented. In other words, the promise to pay for a previous voluntary service is binding. It is important that the service was rendered voluntarily and also for the promisor. With this exception, some essential things must be accomplished – the service must be done voluntarily in the past, it was given to the promisor that existed when the volunteering was done, and the Promisor showed that it was willing to compensate for volunteerism. For example, A finds B`s handbag on the street and returns to it. B rejoices and finds his handbag and promises A to pay 1000 rupees as a gesture of gratitude. In this case, there is no quid pro quo, but it is always an agreement, as it is the exception of “past voluntary service”.

Another situation that is dealt with in this exception is that if the promisor did something for the promisor, which the promisor was legally bound to do, a subsequent promise to pay for the deed is enforceable. A written promise to pay a debt prescribed by the statute of limitations is enforceable even without consideration.

Thursday, April 8th, 2021

Comments are closed.