Past voluntary service is defined in section 25(2) of the Native American Contracts Act of 1872 as follows: “- An agreement entered into without consideration is void unless it is a promise to indemnify, in whole or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or something to which the promisor was legally obliged.” It can be said that if a person voluntarily performs an act on behalf of another person and another person promises to compensate him in whole or in part, this is legally enforceable. Example: Rajesh found Neha`s wallet on a street and returns it to her. In return, Neha promises to pay Rajesh an amount of Rs. 500. Then it`s a valid contract. Here, Rajesh did his voluntary service and Neha promised to compensate him. In the case of Razak and Salma, Razak saved Salma`s child, who fell into the water while Razak was walking around the lake. Salma then promised to give Samad RM2 as a reward for his efforts and asked Razak to call him after a week to get the money back. After a week, Razak called Salma to claim the reward, but Salma told Razak that she would not pay him because there was no valid contract between them. It is apparent from the case that Razak`s act of saving Salma`s child is a past consideration based on the fact that a past consideration relates to a voluntary act performed by a party before making a promise. In this case, Razak saved Salma`s child before Salma promised to reward him, making Razak`s action a bygone consideration. Although the examination passed is a valid consideration from a Malaysian legal point of view, it must be made at the request or request of the promisor in accordance with section 2 (d) of the Act.

In this case, Razak`s voluntary act of saving Salma`s child was not under Salma`s request or request, which is the promise, making it an invalid past consideration. According to the general rule of article 26 of the Act, any contract concluded without consideration is considered null and void and unenforceable under the law. The article makes it clear that agreements without consideration are void unless: – i) It is written and recorded ii) Promise to compensate something done iii) Is a promise to pay prescribed debts through a statute of limitations This topic will mainly focus on the promise to compensate something done. Consideration, as defined in section 2 (d) of the Contracts Act 1950, refers to an act of a person who has done or refrained from doing something, or a promise to do or refrain from doing something done by the promisor or another person at the request of the promisor. Consideration is an essential element in the formation of a valid contract that is legally enforceable, and this is provided for in the provision of section 26 of the Act, which states that an agreement entered into without consideration is deemed void under the Act. The need for consideration for a promise to be considered a legal agreement is also provided for in section 2(e) of the Act, which defines an agreement as any promise and set of promises that constituted consideration for each other. In general, consideration refers to the price that one party, namely the promisor, pays to buy the promise or share of the other, namely the promisor. Actions taken in the past for review would be a good consideration. In Lampleigh v. Brathwait, in which the defendant asked the plaintiff to help him obtain a pardon from the king. The applicant made an effort, went to the king`s house, etc., his application was not approved.

The defendant promised to pay him for it. Later, he refused to do so. The plaintiff sued him. The court ruled that the defendant had to pay the plaintiff because he himself had asked him to help him. Accordingly, the applicant`s act, although committed in the past, is still regarded as a valid consideration. As a general rule, the performance of an already contractual obligation towards the promisor is not a good consideration. Even with regard to public policy, it is necessary to avoid a tendency to exert undue pressure or threaten to break the contract, unless another party complies by paying or promising to do so. The promisor must find it advantageous to fulfill the promise immediately, rather than paying for its violation, which may not fully compensate the promiser.

It is common ground that the consideration may be transferred by a third party, but that that third party may not bring an action of its own free will. However, there was a lot of confusion on this point. Therefore, although the definition of “consideration” in Indian law is broader than in English law, as the common law is applicable, it is generally applied that the third party cannot perform the contract. A promise to compensate the person who did something voluntary for the provocateur in the past is enforceable. This exception applies in cases where the services are provided voluntarily. Thus, if a service is provided on behalf of a non-existent undertaking, a subsequent promise of payment would not entail that provision. Even if the promisor did something to promise him that he had to do legally, then it will also fall under this exception. Identification of the promisor and promisor in the case of previous voluntary service If a person provides voluntary services without a request or commitment from another person and the person receiving the services makes a promise to pay for the services, then such a promise is enforceable in India under section 25(2) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, which states: “An agreement concluded without consideration is void unless it is a promise to indemnify, in whole or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or to whom the promisor was legally bound; or unless. Subsection 25(2) of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872 explains the remuneration for past voluntary service.

It is important for us to understand the meaning of the term consideration in order to pursue the subject. Section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 states: “If, at the request of the promisor, the promisor or any other person has made or refrained, or made or refrains from doing or promises to do or to abstain, such action or abstinence or promise shall be called consideration for the promise;”. From the foundations of contract law or section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, we know that consideration is an essential part of a contract and therefore an important part of the contract. And an agreement without compensation is therefore null and void. Why, then, do we need a separate section in the Contracts Act for the same purposes? Section 25 of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872 focuses primarily on exceptions to the rule that there can be no contracts without consideration. One of the exceptions is compensation for past voluntary service. This means that a contract can be entered into without consideration if the consideration for a coin is considered to have been delivered in the past, for which the other party provides the consideration in the present. To understand in depth, we can analyze sec25. From the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. Section 25 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 25th agreement without consideration, void unless it is written and registered or it is a promise to compensate something done, or a promise to pay a debt excluded by the Statute of Limitations. An agreement entered into without recklessness is void unless (2) it is a promise to indemnify, in whole or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or to whom the promiser was legally bound. The person who voluntarily performs a previous service is promised, while the person who promises to compensate him is a promisor.

For example, Rajat found Ramesh`s lost dog and in return, Ramesh Rajat promises to compensate him by paying him 200Rs. This is Rajat Promisee and Ramesh is Promisor. Although rajat does not take into account, there is a valid contract. The provision of paragraph 26(b) of the Act provides that a promise to indemnify in whole or in part a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or to whom the provocateur was legally bound constitutes a contract valid under the Act . . . .