What question did the Court decide?

Whether there was valid consideration for an extra ₹61 promised to the lawyer if he won the case.

What is the rule on consideration here?

A promise is not enforceable if it asks for performance already owed. A pre-existing duty cannot be fresh consideration.

Why was the extra payment void?

The vakil already had a duty to give his best efforts under the original fee arrangement; the extra promise added nothing new in law.

The defendant. The Court held the extra payment promise was void for want of consideration.

What is the study takeaway?

No new legal detriment or benefit = no consideration. Doing what you already must do cannot support an extra promise.

ramchandra-chintaman-v-kalu-raju

Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju

(1877) 2 Bom 362 — Consideration • Pre-Existing Duty Rule

Bombay High Court 1877 (1877) 2 Bom 362 Contract • Consideration ~5 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

A client promised his lawyer an extra ₹61 if the case was won. The lawyer was already paid to give his best work. The Court said the extra promise had no consideration. Why? Because the lawyer had a pre-existing duty to do his best anyway. So, the extra promise was not binding.

Issues

Was there valid consideration for the extra ₹61 promise?

Rules

Doing what you already must do under an existing contract is not fresh consideration.
Promises without new legal detriment/benefit are void for want of consideration.

A pre-existing duty cannot support an additional payment promise.

Facts — Timeline

Case Engagement → Extra Promise → Refusal → Suit

Engagement: Defendant hires the vakil (lawyer) and pays his regular fee.

Extra promise: Defendant promises an extra ₹61 if the case is won.

After case: Defendant does not pay the extra amount.

Suit filed: Lawyer sues for the additional ₹61.

Held: Promise void—no consideration; vakil already owed best efforts.

Timeline of extra promise and refusal in Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju

Arguments

Plaintiff (Vakil)

Client promised an extra ₹61 on success.
Case was conducted diligently; extra sum should be paid.

Defendant (Client)

No new consideration—vakil already bound to act with best skill.
Extra promise is gratuitous and unenforceable.

Judgment

For the Defendant

The Court held the promise of an extra ₹61 was void for want of consideration. The vakil was already under a contractual duty to do his best; the extra promise added no new legal detriment or benefit.

Judgment concept: no consideration for extra promise

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Pre-existing duty rule: Performance of an existing contractual duty is not valid consideration for a new promise of extra pay.

Why It Matters

Prevents pressure tactics mid-contract (“pay more or else”).
Protects integrity of the original bargain.
Guides drafting of fee agreements and success-based bonuses.

Key Takeaways

No new detriment/benefit → no consideration.
Best-efforts duty is part of the original fee; extra pay needs extra legal value.
Put performance bonuses in the original contract, not later promises.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Already Owed ≠ Owed Again.”

Check Duty: Are you already bound to perform?
Find Value: Any new legal detriment/benefit?
Decide: If no new value → promise is not enforceable.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the extra ₹61 promise supported by consideration?

Rule

Pre-existing duty cannot be consideration for a new promise.

Application

Vakil already owed best efforts; extra promise added no new legal value.

Conclusion

Promise void for want of consideration; defendant not liable.

Glossary

Consideration: Legal value exchanged—benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee.
Pre-Existing Duty: An obligation already owed; cannot be used as “new” consideration.
Void for Want of Consideration: A promise unenforceable because no new legal value supports it.