Consideration | 'A' engaged a Vakil to conduct his case for specified fees. Subsequently, A promised to pay an additional remuneration if the case was to succeed. The case succeeds… What according to you will be the result of this suit?

Question: Consideration | ‘A’ engaged a Vakil to conduct his case for specified fees. Subsequently, A promised to pay an additional remuneration if the case was to succeed. The case succeeds and the Vakil sues ‘A’ for additional remuneration. What according to you will be the result of this suit? [HJS 1984]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Consideration | ‘A’ engaged a Vakil to conduct his case for specified fees. Subsequently, A promised to pay an additional remuneration if the case was to succeed. The case succeeds… What according to you will be the result of this suit?]

Answer

The vakil cannot recover the additional remuneration. The reason is that A’s promise to pay the additional remuneration was without any consideration. The consideration must be something which the promisor is not already bound to do. Here, vakil was already bound to render the best of his services under the original contract.

According to Section 2(d) of The Indian Contract Act,1872 “when at the desire of the promisor, promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence, or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”

However, where there is a pre-existing contract with the promisor, compliance with a legal obligation imposed by a contract with the promisor can be no consideration for a promise. The leading case is of Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju [ILR (1877) 2 Bom 362]. In this case, the plaintiff accepted a Vakalatnama from the defendant to act for him in a certain suit on receiving his usual fee. Subsequently, the defendant agreed to pay him a certain sum as a special reward (inam) if the suit was decided in his favor. The suit was decided in favor of the defendant, who, however, did not pay the amount. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the present suit against him.

Rejecting the action, Westroppe C.J. said: “The plaintiff, having accepted a Vakalatnama was already bound to render his best service as a pleader. There was no fresh consideration proceeding from the plaintiff when he obtained the agreement.”

Another better-known illustration is the old English case of Stilk v. Meyrick [(1809) 2 Camp 317]. In this case, while a ship was on a voyage, two of the seamen deserted; and the captain, having in vain attempted to supply their places, entered into an agreement with the rest of the crew that if they work the ship home, they should have the wages of the two who had deserted equally divided among them.

Lord Ellenborough C.J. held that the agreement was void for want of consideration in as much as it was the contractual duty of the mariners who remained with the ship to exert themselves utmost in any emergency of the voyage to bring the ship in safety to her destined port and the desertion of a part of the crew was definitely an emergency of the voyage. But where, in another case, sailors refused to complete a voyage because of war risks, not originally contemplated, but remained on duty on the promise of extra pay, they were allowed to recover it. Thus, the Performance of a legal duty is no consideration for a promise.

---

Law of Contract Mains Questions Series: Important Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-X