Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 17, 2025
The delivery need not have been made unless the owner chose, and having been made as the term of a bargain, the promisor cannot set up what might have happened to destroy the effect of what did happen.
But if this were all, every clause in a contract which showed what the promisor did not promise would be a condition, and the word would be worse than useless. The characteristic feature is quite different.
It was several times adjudged that a past and executed matter was a sufficient consideration for a promise at a later day, if only the matter relied on had been done or furnished at the request of the promisor. /2/ It is now time to analyze the nature of a promise, which is the second and most conspicuous element in a simple contract. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 2,8 says:
The natural question is, what the promisor was to have for his promise. /2/ It is only by analysis that the supposed policy of the law is seen to be equally satisfied by a detriment incurred by the promisee.
But the law does not inquire, as a general thing, how far the accomplishment of an assurance touching the future is within the power of the promisor. But unless some consideration of public policy intervenes, I take it that a man may bind himself at law that any future event shall happen. He can therefore promise it in a legal sense.
When we in English have occasion, in mentioning a contract, to connect it for convenience' sake with one of the parties for example, if we wished to speak generally of a contractor it is always the promisor at whom our words are pointing.
Now, if we reflect for a moment, we shall see that this obligation to put the promise interrogatively inverts the natural position of the parties, and, by effectually breaking the tenor of the conversation, prevents the attention from gliding over a dangerous pledge. With us, a verbal promise is, generally speaking, to be gathered exclusively from the words of the promisor.
That is, as it is commonly explained, unless the promisee has either conferred a benefit on the promisor, or incurred a detriment, as the inducement to the promise. It has been thought that this rule was borrowed from Roman law by the Chancery, and, after undergoing some modification there, passed into the common law. But this account of the matter is at least questionable.
Very often other persons, called fidejussors or sureties, are bound for the promisor, being taken by promises as additional security.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking