3.2 Rules regarding Consideration

At the promisor's request — the volunteered act is no consideration (the unsolicited benefit creates at most an unjust-enrichment claim, not a contract); Past consideration — the common-law bar (a past act cannot be the price of a present promise) vs. the Indian-and-civil-law recognition ("for value received" — the Nepali statute's own position stated functionally as the practical recognition); Sufficiency vs. adequacy — the law asks presence, not equivalence: the peppercorn's logic — a token consideration suffices; inadequacy is not a bar but is evidence of fraud or undue influence (the fairness inquiry shifting to consent: Unit 5); Lawful consideration — the unlawful-and-immoral bar (Unit 6): the illegal bargain's tout- nullity — no recovery on it (the courts' clean-hands rule); Consideration may move from the promisee — the third party's supply of value raising the privity questions below; Performance of an existing duty is no consideration — the pre-existing-legal-duty rule (the public-duty variant; the contractual-duty modification needing fresh consideration — the modern promissory-estoppel qualification).