Quid pro quo
‘Something in return’.
It is a component of a valid contract and is no exception when it comes to exceptions.
I can only guess, but I think this concept took birth after humans invented greed. Otherwise how was it possible to distribute the resources in first place. To be able to give something away meant you need to have something before and so suddenly what was ours became what is yours and what is mine. And when I was not satisfied with what I have, I started asking for yours and you were no saint to give that up easily so you took something that was mine, hence quid pro quo.
Well, the story started simple, we had a barter, for the one who invented money was yet to be born. You wanted apple and I wanted some wheat. Life was easy. But only until you changed your demand. Various things came into picture, in order to settle a transactions- metals, coins, barley and even cigarettes (yes, it’s true) then we agreed upon an imagined order hence came money. It was soon taken up so seriously that today it’s an offensive crime to not give something in return.
But in all these transitions what stayed was ‘something in return’ and it was just something that changed over history. Sometimes commodities or physical labour or mental prowess, anything in exchange for what you want.
Coming to the exceptions, I don’t think they hold true
1 contracts out of natural love and affection- isn’t this very love and affection a consideration for what they are getting in the return.
2 contract for past voluntary service- can’t the word given by promisor be a consideration.
3 Time barred debt- the promisee already owed him something which is just not recognised by law anymore.
All in all, we are structured in a way that we do things only when they are rewarding so I don’t believe anything goes without consideration. It’s just about defining the something.

Comments
Post a Comment