Most business contracts fulfill the counterpart obligation with exchanged commitments. Actually doing the promised work also counts as a consideration. Explanation 2: an agreement on which the agreement of the promiser is voluntarily granted is not only null and void because the consideration is insufficient; However, the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court of Justice when examining whether the promiser`s agreement was given voluntarily. The General Court relied on the judgment in Dutton v Poole[9], according to which the deed of gift and the simultaneous agreement between the applicant and the defendant may be regarded as a settlement and that the defendant obtained from its mother a reduction sufficient to constitute consideration under Article 2 (d) [10]. In each of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. Radhakrishna Joshi v. Syndicated bank, In this case, a loan was paid to the defendant`s son as part of the independent loan, the father executed documents in which he committed and confirmed to pay. He was held responsible even though he was not a guarantor. The case was decided without exception, as nature obliges parents to take care of the children. There were also reflections because he bought his family peace by saving the seizure of his sons` estate. Pursuant to section 185 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, no consideration is required to establish an agency. An agreement without consideration is not reached unless, in the case of Rajlukhy Dabee v.

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. For example, in the case of Scammell and Nephew v Ouston,[2] the parties reached an agreement where scammell was to deliver a van for £286 on HP terms for a 2-year-old child and Ouston exchanged his old van for £100. There were some disagreements and Scammel refused to deliver the van. . . .