The emerging modern rule is that a promise based on moral or past considerations is enforceable, even if it does not fall within any of the three exceptions, as long as the promise is based on a material benefit previously granted by the promisor to the promettant and provided that the benefit has created a moral obligation of compensation. For example: In general, consideration in the past is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Previous considerations are considerations that have already flowed from promising to promising. That is, the act or tolerance of the promise is older than the promise of the promise. The consideration in the past cannot therefore be used as a basis for claiming damages.  A owes Rs 1,000,000 to B, but the debt is time-barred under the statute of limitations. However, if A B agrees in writing to pay 50,000, this is considered a valid contract. Previous counterparties cannot be included in a contract, mainly because they did not benefit the promising or did not pose a risk to the promising. For a contract to be valid, it must necessarily include consideration. In a two-person contract, for example, both parties involved must promise something, whether it is a certain action or an agreement to pay a certain amount of money. In general, courts do not consider whether the agreement between two parties was financially fair – only whether each party passed on a legal obligation or obligation to the other party.  The determining issue is the existence of a consideration, not the relevance of the consideration. The values between the consideration provided by each contracting party to a contract need not necessarily be comparable. Contracts where a legally worthless clause is associated with a legally binding clause are generally still enforceable. The second exception to the rule that a promise based on moral or past considerations is unenforceable is a promise to abide by a questionable undertaking. This promise is enforceable despite the absence of a new consideration, as long as the new promise is not subject to the same defence that made the original undertaking voidable. For example, if A signs a contract with B so that A cancels B`s house for $500, A`s consideration is B`s house painting service, and B`s counterpart is $500 paid to A. If A signs a contract with B so that A does not repaint his own house in a color other than white and B A pays $500 a year to maintain that agreement, there is also a consideration. Although A did not promise to do anything in the affirmative, A promised not to do something he was allowed to do, and so A was considered. The consideration of A for B is the tolerance of painting one`s own house in a color other than white, and the consideration of B for A is $500 per year. Conversely, if A signs a contract to buy a car from B for $0, B is still the car, but A does not give any attention, and so there is no valid contract.
However, if B still gives ownership of the car to A, B cannot take back the car because, although it is not a valid contract, it is a valid gift. Systems based on Roman law (including Germany  and Scotland) do not need to be taken into consideration, and some commentators consider this unnecessary and have proposed abandoning the doctrine of consideration and replacing it as the basis of treaties.  However, legislation, not judicial development, has been presented as the only way to eliminate this deep-rooted common law doctrine. Lord Justice Denning said that “the doctrine of consideration is too entrenched to be overturned by a crosswind”.  A rendered some services to B in June. In July, B promised to pay A Rs. 500. The consideration of A is a consideration in the past. In most cases, English law does not accept considerations of the past. A previous examination cannot constitute consideration and would therefore invalidate the document. As for mutual consideration, it must be something where each party must do something or act on the promise of another, so that neither party is related to unless the two are related.
It is very clear that past considerations are not taken into account at all. However, there are exceptions that the previous consideration in English law is a good consideration. Nowadays, there is a growing belief that promises made for the past can be implemented even if they do not meet one of the three traditional criteria. The current view is that a promise can be executed if it is a substantial benefit and the promise of benefit has occurred after examination. The most essential element of a contract. In the event that a party intentionally takes action before the promise comes into play, consideration will be taken into account in that case. The foregoing consideration gives consideration as an essential element of a valid contract a broad scope. For example, imagine going for a walk and seeing another person fall and get hurt.
You then hurry to help the injured person, bring them home and help them heal. To show appreciation, the other person promises to pay you $1,000. The help you provided to the injured person would be considered a past consideration. Although you were not legally obligated to help them, you felt morally obligated, and your fulfillment of this moral duty led you to be paid. Knowledge of past considerations is very important. Because in everyday life we conclude such a contract, in which we can not get consideration, because it is taken into account in the past. Past considerations, which are usually not satisfactory to make a promise restrictive. In such a case, the promising can see through his promise a moral responsibility that is not a consideration, at least he receives nothing but compromises for his promise, because he now has it, before the promise is made. In general, a conditional consideration is a valid consideration. A is a doctor.
B is a patient. B was taken to A`s pharmacy. A performed his services for ten days. After ten days, B promises to compensate A for the services provided to him. This is a consideration of the past. A can recover the promised amount. Previous considerations generally cannot be recalled for an agreement because they did not benefit the promisor or constitute a danger to the promisor. For a contract to be legitimate, it must certainly contain a good legitimate consideration. In a bipartisan contract, for example, the two parties included would have to guarantee something, whether it`s a specific demonstration or an agreement to pay a certain amount of money. However, if the benefit granted to a person is a gift, the promise of compensation for the benefit cannot be enforced. There is no moral obligation to refund gifts.
For example, imagine that you receive a car as a gift for your birthday and later promise to refund it to the person who gave you the car. Their promise cannot be kept because the car was given as a gift. In addition, promises for past consideration are enforceable only if the promettant has benefited in any way from the consideration. The promisor`s debts are not enough to make the promise enforceable. In Currie v. Misa , the court stated that consideration was a “right, interest, profit, advantage or abstention, disadvantage, loss, liability”. Therefore, the consideration is a promise of something of value given by a donor in exchange for something of value given by a promisor; And generally, the question of value is a good, money or a stock. Acting with leniency, like an adult who promises to quit smoking, is only enforceable if you waive a legal right.    A promises to sell a car to B, and B promises to sell Rs.
twenty thousand to pay. Now the promise to sell the car is backed by a promise of return and it`s a contract. The returned promise of Rs. twenty thousand is the consideration or price of the promise to sell the car. Because this is an enforceable contract with consideration, if A violates the contract, B can sue it because A has breached a legally enforceable contract. English law does not recognize a prior consideration. In English, legal consideration may be present or future, but not past. Consideration in the past is not at all important in English law. Therefore, an agreement based on prior considerations is void.
The test may be executable, but may not be passed.