After Glisson set up its own security business, Global Glisson sued to enforce the second non-compete agreement.  However, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the new non-compete agreement signed did not have a valid consideration, given that Global already had an obligation to hire Glisson during the first two-year term of the employment contract. When signing the second non-compete agreement, Global provided no value other than what they had already promised in return for Glisson to sign the first agreement.  A promise to pay part of a debt is not a sufficient counterpart to pay a larger debt. This is because there is no new counterpart for paying a smaller amount of money. Similarly, if a party is already legally required to do something, this cannot be a new consideration either. If the contracting parties have already contractually agreed, a promise to do something for which they have already concluded a contract cannot be a „fresh“ reflection. At Eastwood v Kenyon, a young girl`s guardian collected a loan to raise the girl and improve her marriage prospects. After her marriage, her husband promised to repay the loan. It was found that the guardian failed to keep the promise, because the loan to raise and educate the girl was a past reflection, since it was concluded before the husband promised to repay her.  The court found that the consideration for the ownership interest included „corporation“ and „consortium,“ essentially that Smith promised to deal with Riley and so on.
The court held that it was not necessary for the consideration to correspond to what is given in exchange.  In this case, the court found smith`s love and affection and consideration of a nominal consideration of $1.00 to be sufficient consideration. There has to be some kind of connection between a promise and the quid pro quo offered to support the promise. There are no plans to „refrain from conduct that should never be prosecuted“.  The consideration must be at least an incentive to keep the promise. Since there is no quid pro quo from a party, there is no contract. Talk to a contract lawyer about your agreement and let it clear. Call us to speak to a contract lawyer on +44 20 7036 9282 or email us at email@example.com. Consideration is an English common law concept in contract law and is a necessity for simple contracts (but not for specific contracts per act).
The concept of counterparty has been taken up by other ordinary law jurisconsultations, including the United States. The UZK also allows one party to dismiss the other party without consideration in the absence of infringement and allows the parties to amend their Article 2 contract without consideration. Single Commercial Code, §2-209, para. 4 and 2-209, paras. 1. In the official comments on the UZK section, the following are added: „However, amendments made under this Act shall comply with the test of good faith imposed by this Act. The effective application of bad faith to circumvent the performance of the original contractual conditions is excluded and the blackmail of a „modification“ without a justified economic reason is ineffective as a breach of the duty of good faith. „Past consideration is not a consideration“: consideration must be „executory“ or „executed“, but must not be „adjusted“; In other words, the counterpart must be made in the present or in the future, but things that are done before cannot be a good consideration.  In Smith v.
. . .