Durga Prasad v Baldeo
(1880) Indian Law Reports 3 Allahabad 22118801 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- 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.
- Issue
- 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.
- Principle
- A promise made in consideration of an act done at the promisor's own desire, but not at the request of the promisee, does not constitute valid consideration.
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
- 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.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Part A: Core authority for the "desire of the promisor" requirement within Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act.
- Part B: Distinguish from Chinnaya v Ramayya (1882) where there was a direct transactional link between the consideration-provider and the promisor's desire.
- Key line: "A promise to pay for a benefit is unenforceable where the underlying act was done at a third party's request, not at the promisor's own desire."
Cite this
Citation
Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880) Indian Law Reports 3 Allahabad 221Reported: (1880) ILR 3 All 221. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.