In: Economics
Some said that the enforceability of a contract shall not be dependent on the existence of consideration but on a mere exchange of promises. To what extent would you agree/disagree?
I agree with the statement in a limited extent and make it enforceable, if a promise causes promisee (to whom the promise is made) taking action or refraining from taking action and it makes a significant change to the promisee, on the basis of promise made by the promisor ( who has made the promise). For example, uncle Jacob promises to pay $100 if Sam quits smoking. Now Sam (promisee) takes initiatives and refrain from smoking. It makes enforceable for the Uncle Jacob (promisor) to pay. It is also considered enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Here, the promise should also be legitimate in nature, to be enforceable and parties involved should be competent and able to enter the contract.
But, promises only for the sake of promise, should not be enforceable. For example, promise to give a bicycle to the kid on next birthday, should not be enforceable in the court of law.