Agreement Without Consideration Section 25

This is a condition precedent for the application of this Section. The promise must be expressed and it must not be qualified to lead to some kind of confusion, that is, it must be ambiguous. [13] Article 25(3) does not apply in the event of an appeal for late tenancy out of time. In addition, in order for an entry to correspond to the exception referred to in Article 25(3), the debt certificate must consist of an obligation to pay. (iii) in the case of a promise to pay a debt prescribed by the statute of limitations – this agreement shall be in writing and signed by the person to be inculcated or by his representative, in his general or expressly authorized name, to pay all or part of a debt the payment of which the creditor could have imposed, but for the statute of limitation of remedies. i) If the agreement is in writing, such agreements are concluded in writing and are recorded by law and are concluded due to natural love and affection between the parties. The parties involved should be close to one another. If both parties, by entering into an agreement, set a date for the repayment of the loan or liabilities after the limitation period, the statute of limitations does not recognize, in such cases, fault within the meaning of Article 18 of the Statute of Limitations. Furthermore, if the offer of services has not been accepted by one of the parties, it shall not be regarded as a promise within the meaning of Article 25(3) of the ICA.

[15] According to section 2(e) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, “any promise and any series of promises that constitute mutual consideration”[1] is considered an agreement. However, this simple definition gives some ambiguities. The main difference between the agreement and the contract is that an agreement must be socially accepted. It does not need to be enforceable by law. 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 treaty. A written undertaking to pay a debt prescribed by the Statute of Limitations is also enforceable without consideration. The agreement must be signed by the promiser, his representative or any other person authorized by him. [4] For example, A B Rs must be 1000. Guilt is prescribed by the Statute of Limitations. A signs a written promise to pay B the sum of Rs 1000.

This is a valid contract and no consideration is required. According to Article 25(3)[6], a cheque issued for a prescribed debt falls under Article 138 of the Law on Negotiable Instruments[5]. In the case of Rajlukhy Dabee against Bhootnath Mookkerjee, the accused promised to pay his wife a fixed sum of money each month for a separate stay and alimony. The agreement was in writing and contained in a registered document mentioning certain disputes and disagreements between the two parties. The court refused to place the agreement under this exception, as the agreement was not concluded out of love and affection, which was indicated by the registered document. This is another exception to the principles of English law, which states that taking into account the past is not a consideration at all, unless it is a promise or an act carried out at the request of the promisor. . .

.