Question:

Principle : When, at the desire one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts : X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • Consideration has moved from the side of X.
  • Consideration has moved from the side of Y.
  • No consideration has moved from the side of Y.
  • Quitting smoking and drinking cannot be a consideration.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

The correct option is (B): Consideration has moved from the side of Y.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The principle says that when, at the desire of one person, another person does or abstains from doing something, that act or abstinence is consideration for the promise. Here X asked Y to quit smoking and drinking, and Y actually quit within six months. Let's look at each option to see who really gave the consideration.

  1. Option A: Consideration has moved from the side of X: X only made the promise to pay Rs. 1,00,000, he is the promisor. He did not himself do or abstain from anything at Y's desire, so nothing that could be called consideration originated from X.
  2. Option B: Consideration has moved from the side of Y: Y is the one who abstained from smoking and drinking, and he did this at X's desire. That abstinence is exactly what the principle calls consideration, so it is Y who supplied it.
  3. Option C: No consideration has moved from the side of Y: This goes against the facts directly. Y did abstain from smoking and drinking at X's desire, so consideration clearly did move from him.
  4. Option D: Quitting smoking and drinking cannot be a consideration: The principle defines consideration to include abstaining from doing something at another's desire. Giving up a habit is exactly this kind of abstinence, so it can be, and here is, valid consideration.

Y's act of abstaining from smoking and drinking, done because X asked him to, is the consideration for X's promise, so it moved from Y's side, not X's.

Therefore, the correct answer is Consideration has moved from the side of Y.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

To resolve this, break the principle into its working parts: consideration exists when (i) one person expresses a desire, and (ii) another person, in response, does something or abstains from doing something. Whoever actually performs that act or abstinence is the one who supplies the consideration. Test each option against this two-part framework.

  1. Consideration has moved from the side of X: Under the framework, X is the party who expressed the desire, that Y give up smoking and drinking, and who made the promise of reward. Expressing a desire and promising to pay in return is the role of the promisor, not the role of the party furnishing consideration, so this points away from X rather than toward him.
  2. Consideration has moved from the side of Y: Applying the framework, Y is the party who acted on X's desire by actually giving up smoking and drinking. That abstinence satisfies the second part of the test exactly, an act or abstinence performed at another person's desire, which makes Y the one who supplied the consideration.
  3. No consideration has moved from the side of Y: This fails the test outright. The facts confirm Y did abstain at X's desire, so the second part of the framework is squarely met by Y, not absent.
  4. Quitting smoking and drinking cannot be a consideration: The framework does not require the abstinence to be of any particular kind, it only requires that it happen at another's desire. Giving up a habit fits this requirement just as any other abstinence would, so there is no basis to carve it out.

Running the facts through the two-part framework isolates Y as the party whose conduct meets the definition, since he is the one who abstained at X's desire.

Therefore, the correct answer is Consideration has moved from the side of Y.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Contract Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions