The exact wording of Article 25 states: “Any agreement without consideration shall be null and void if it is not given in writing or if it is entered in a promise of compensation.” Consideration is an essential element of a contract that can be defined as the value exchanged by the parties to the contract. Consideration can be a promise to do or refrain from doing something. When two parties decide to enter into a contract, they exchange promises for each other that serve as consideration value. Paragraph 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act states that consideration is essential for any contract. It also includes all exceptions when a contract is valid regardless. These exceptions are: if B treated A during his illness but refused to accept payment from A; Out of gratitude promises to pay ₹ 1,000 to the son of B, D, the agreement between A and D is invalid for lack of consideration, as it does not fall within this exception. Agreement on the payment of prescribed debts [Article 25, paragraph 3]: Under this exception, a promise to settle a prescribed debt in whole or in part is enforceable if that undertaking is made in writing and signed by the debtor or his agent. A prescribed debt cannot be recovered and, therefore, a promise to repay these debts is without consideration. www.preservearticles.com/2012012621491/exceptions-to-consideration-no-consideration-and-no-contract.html The simplest agreement, which is without regard, is the one that is formed from pure gratuity.
Such a promise is unenforceable. The law on this point regarding the suitability of the counterparty is simple and clear – that the counterparty does not need to be of a certain fixed value or an approximation of the promise for which it is exchanged, but that it must have certain values in the eyes of the law. He must change the position of the promisor after responding to the counterparty or transferring it from the promisor to the promiser. Although the counterpart of an agent is remuneration, but no consideration is required at the time of the appointment of an agent. The term “quid pro quo” is used in the sense of “something in return”, i.e. quid pro quo. An agreement without consideration is a simple promise and exnudo pacto non aritio actio, i.e. it cannot be considered binding on the parties. Sir Frederick Pollock defined the reasoning: “It is the price for which the promise of the other is purchased, and the promise that is thus given for the value is enforceable.” Subsection 25(3) of the Contracts Act states: “This is a written promise signed by the person who is to be appointed to do so, or by his representative, generally or specifically authorized on that behalf, to settle a debt in whole or in part, the payment of which the creditor could have enforced without the limitation period of the actions.” In Vijay Ramraj v. Vijay Anand, the court ruled that the contract was enforceable when the promisor, who had promised to pay his relative a certain amount during his lifetime, died. It was assumed that the contract had been formed out of natural love and, since the contractual document was also registered, the heirs of the deceased were held liable, under Article 25(1) and (37) of the Law on Contracts, for the specific fulfilment of the contractual conditions, as the promisor would have done if he had lived.
The general rule is that the agreement is void without compensation. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule under section 25 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. According to section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “if part of a single consideration for one or more objects or part or part of one of several counterparties for a single object is unlawful and the agreement is void.” A promise without consideration cannot constitute a legal obligation. The general rule is that an agreement concluded without consideration is void. This rule is contained in section 25 of the Indian Contracts Act, which states that “an agreement entered into without consideration is void.” This means that consideration is a must in any case. However, this article provides for certain exceptions where an agreement is valid without consideration. In Vijay Ramraj v.A. Vijay Anand, it was found that if the promisor promised to pay his relative a sum of money during his lifetime, then the agreement is enforceable. However, if the agreement is concluded by affection and is recorded in writing, it is equivalent to a valid contract. When a husband made an agreement with his wife and recorded that he would give her his earrings, it was assumed that there was a valid agreement.  The existence of a promise of compensation in the future must be present to constitute an exception under this section. If there is no promise, no contract arises in such a situation and therefore the claim of certain services cannot be maintained.
§ 185 of the contractual decision, provided that no consideration is required for the establishment of a commercial agency contract. Therefore, if only one person is appointed as an agent, their appointment agreement may be without consideration and the appointment agreement is valid. This is another exception to the principles of English law, which states that past considerations are not at all a quid pro quo, unless they are a promise or an action taken at the request of the promettant. Subsection 25(2) covers this exception and there is no requirement for consideration when a person performs an act or renders a service to the promisor without the promisor`s knowledge. And in return, the provocateur shows his willingness to compensate for this through a company. According to Siqueria v. Noronha of the Privy Council, it says: “Section 25 is exhaustive; and it is therefore in a position to cover any agreement within its competence to qualify the applicability of that agreement. If it qualifies the agreement, it will be enforceable, and if not, it will not be enforceable at all. ».