Essentially past consideration in common law is by its nature not consideration. Consideration is defined as a bargain for exchange. Where one element of a deal has already occurred before the deal began, there was no bargain. If for example, you give me a shiny stone as a gift. A couple weeks later, we find out that the stone is a rare ruby worth millions. I decide that I'm going to sell it and promise to give you 1/2 of the earnings in consideration for you giving me the stone in the first place. The reason that this is not consideration is that there must be a bargain. You must do something to entice me to do something in return, and I must do something to entice you to do something in return. Promising to give you 1/2 of the earnings did not entice you to give me the stone in the first place, so therefore there was no bargain in place and my promise is merely a gift. However, most states authorize past consideration though statute in specific situations. For example New York authorizes past consideration under General Obligations Law § 5-1105.
Distinguished
The word 'distinguished' can be seen as a verb or an adjective, depending on how it is used in a sentence. First, it can be used like the simple past tense of the verb 'distinguish' as in the following sentence: Mary distinguished herself on many occasions in public speaking. It can also be used in the past participial form: Mary has distinguished herself on many occasions in public speaking. As a grammatical principle, the past participle of a verb can also be used as an adjective. So, the word 'distinguished' can be used as an adjective as follows: our distinguished professor, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, a tall distinguished figure in a brown suit, etc.
dont cheat or i will snitch
The advantages of consideration in a valid contract
In Buddhism, Anatta means soul-lessness. It is a doctrine of rebirth that should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation.
That's actually not a doctrine.
past consideration is of no effect to consideration at all. It is where the defendant's promise is subsequent to the plaintiff's act and independent of it. for example, where P saves D from drowning; Das an expression pf gratitude, later promises to pay P a sum of money as a reward. Here P cannot sue D on his promise since P's consideration is past in time, D's promise being subsequent abd independent of A's act. The case of Re McArddle illustrates the concept of past consideration
Charles Lyell.
Past consideration is not good consideration because it is not contingent on the responding consideration. For example, suppose I gave you $20 on Tuesday as a gift. And then on Friday, you offered to enter a contract with me to wash my car. If I offered the $20 as consideration, or payment, that I had already given you, it would not be a contract. You would not be getting any benefit from the bargain, and I would not have any assurance that you would perform, because there is no benefit to you.
Do you mean consideration for contract formation? To have a bargain, you have to be willing to give something up. For example, if we had a contract for the purchase of your car for $5000, you would give up your car, and I would give up $5000. That's consideration. If the consideration is in the past (e.g. you already gave up your car), that's not going to create a binding contract.
Executed and executory consideration is enforced by the common law courts but a past consideration is not. This is because a past consideration arises where the work is done before the obligation or offer to pay is made. See the case of EASTWOOD VRS KENYON.
in a contract of sale, property in goods is transferred from one person to another with a consideration while in the case of a gift, property in goods is transferred from one person to another without any consideration