A promise cannot be based on considerations that were said, made or made before the promise was kept. What is said after does not count in return. For example, if X promises to reward Y for an action that Y has already performed, the performance of that action is certainly a good consideration, because the promise to be rewarded is a past reflection and is therefore not a good consideration. If the promise is already contractually bound to the promise, the general rule is that compliance with an existing contractual obligation is not a good consideration, unless an additional benefit is granted. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether an additional benefit is being provided; In particular, there may be an advantage if the performance of the existing duty avoids problems related to non-performance (and the usefulness of it exceeds the likely disadvantage of non-performance: Musumeci) counterpart: Something of value (either a promise, an act or an object) that receives a promisor of a promise in return for its promise. A promise can only be contractually kept if it is made either in a document or in exchange for something valuable called “consideration”. This practice note takes into account what amounts to a valid consideration. The act requested by the promiser is taken into account only if it has been considered the price to be paid for the promise. The test is the setting of the reasonable person. If the plot is considered a condition, it is something that must be executed before the promise is made, but fulfillment (without separate examination) does not allow the promise to enforce the promise. The concept of consideration was broadened by the original common law because the common law theory that consideration equals a transaction was somewhat limited for the following reasons: in June 2016, the Court of Appeal reconsidered in MET against Rock Advertising whether the doctrine of practical utility could be applied to covenants or agreements. decreasing to accept less. Arden LJ and Kitchin LJ were both in favour of this approach and indicated that a partial payment, combined with practical utility, might be enough to support a promise to accept less.
The decision has been criticized for extending the practical examination of benefits beyond its limits.  Other factors in an agreement that make a promise enforceable include the promise`s reliance on the promise, certain promises made in exchange for past or moral consideration, the waiver of insignificant terms of an activity, and promises made in special forms recognized by law, such as for example. B promises under seal. In addition, trading in a promise to act is also considered a valid consideration. For example: the consideration can be all of a value (such as the goods, money, services or promises of one of the latter) that each party gives in return to support its side of the bargain. Reciprocal promises are mutual consideration.  If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a “mere promise” and is not enforceable. Since there is no quid pro quo from a party, there is no contract.
As we will see later, there are five different situations where a treaty is considered a violation of the Fraud Act and is therefore invalid if it is not written. . . .