Let`s take a look at some examples of the principle of agreement and satisfaction. The dispute that leads to the agreement of the parties to be settled by an agreement and satisfaction can be evoked in several ways: if there is an unseeded debt; a contentious debt “Full control of payment” is due for less than the creditor`s request; Unforeseen difficulties that lead to treaty change or innovation; or a composition among the creditors. But there is never an obligation – and there can be no real litigation – when someone promises an advantage, when someone does what he or she is already obliged to do, or when a person promises someone not to do what the recipient of the promise does not already have the right to do, or when an illusory promise is made. We now turn to the Tribunal`s decision that the 1982 agreement was the operational contract. The applicant argues that this participation is erroneous because there was no counterpart to the 1982 agreement. We agree. The modification of a contract is the drafting of the contract and a new contract must be supported by a consideration. [Quote] Where a contract has not been fully executed on the date of the new agreement, the replacement of a new provision resulting in a change in the obligations of both parties is a sufficient consideration for the new contract for a provision of the old contract that has not yet been complied with, in accordance with its provision. While the consideration may consist of either a breach of the promise or a benefit to the recipient of the promise, the undertaking to fulfill an existing contractual obligation is not a consideration. [Quote] In another earlier case, the late wife of a man had wanted to leave two hundred dollars to her family after her death. At the time of her death, she had no property. On the contrary, the property belonged to her husband. After his death, the husband tried to abhor with the third parties to whom the wife wanted to leave the money.
In exchange, the third parties paid the husband a penny. In exchange, his love and respect for his late wife was also mentioned. The court stated that the consideration of a penny could not be considered a consideration because it was only nominal – as in, worthless and a form of illusory promise.