Durga Prasad v. Baldeo

Facts

• The plaintiff constructed shops in a market at the direction of the local collector
• Shopkeepers who occupied these shops later promised to pay the plaintiff a commission on their sales, in consideration of his having built the shops
• The plaintiff sued to enforce this promise when the shopkeepers refused to pay
• The construction had been done at the collector's request, not at the shopkeepers' request

Issue

1. Whether a promise to pay for a benefit received, where the underlying act creating that benefit was done at a third party's request rather than the promisor's own desire, constitutes valid consideration.

Held

• Valid consideration requires the act to have been done at the desire of the promisor, not merely at the desire of some other party
• Since the shops were built at the collector's request, not the shopkeepers' request, the shopkeepers' subsequent promise lacked valid consideration
• The promise was unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

For an act to constitute valid consideration for a promise, it must be done at the desire of the promisor. An act done at a third party's request, however beneficial to the later promisor, does not satisfy this requirement.