Which statement about past consideration is correct?

Which statement about past consideration is correct?

• A. Past consideration is always valid
• B. Past consideration is valid if supported by a later promise
• C. Past consideration is not valid unless implied assumpsit
• D. Past consideration is never enforceable

Answer: (C)

Past consideration means something done before a promise was made. In contract law, the promise must be given in exchange for something the promisee provides at the time the promise is made. So, ordinarily, a past act cannot serve as valid consideration for a new promise to pay for it. The only time a promise to pay for a past act can be binding is when there is an implied promise to pay—an implied assumpsit—arising from the circumstances. For example, if you do a service at the promisor’s request and, after the event, they promise payment, the law may treat that as an implied promise to pay for the past act. In that situation the past act can be enforceable because the implied assumpsit supplies the needed consideration. That’s why the correct statement says past consideration is not valid unless supported by an implied assumpsit. The other options overstate or misstate the rule: past consideration is not always valid, there is a recognized exception via implied assumpsit, and a mere later promise to pay for a past act isn’t automatically enforceable without that implied promise.

Past consideration means something done before a promise was made. In contract law, the promise must be given in exchange for something the promisee provides at the time the promise is made. So, ordinarily, a past act cannot serve as valid consideration for a new promise to pay for it.

The only time a promise to pay for a past act can be binding is when there is an implied promise to pay—an implied assumpsit—arising from the circumstances. For example, if you do a service at the promisor’s request and, after the event, they promise payment, the law may treat that as an implied promise to pay for the past act. In that situation the past act can be enforceable because the implied assumpsit supplies the needed consideration.

That’s why the correct statement says past consideration is not valid unless supported by an implied assumpsit. The other options overstate or misstate the rule: past consideration is not always valid, there is a recognized exception via implied assumpsit, and a mere later promise to pay for a past act isn’t automatically enforceable without that implied promise.