Under Section 25 of the Act, an agreement that is not supported by a consideration is non-sour. A contract without consideration becomes Nudum Pactum (Bare Contract). Such a reflection must be real and illusory. The adequacy of the consideration is not necessary. However, Section 25 provides for a few exceptions for which an unrequited exception is not igunity and the examples of such exceptions contain an agreement between the parties on the basis of love and affection, an agreement which is a commitment to compensation, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, etc. A contract may be concluded by word or in writing, but if the law requires that the contract be written, registered or certified, and that such a contract must be so, otherwise it is not applicable. There must be two parties in an agreement, one making the offer and the other accepting it. There must be a legal offer from one party and the legitimate acceptance of the offer by another party or party. The word ”legitimate” implies that the offer and acceptance must be in accordance with the rules of the law on offer and acceptance. The terms of the offer must be absolute and unqualified. The reception must also comply with the prescribed mode and communicated to the supplier. What is important is that there is an agreement, a contractual intent and a consideration.
If all these ingredients are available, then there is a contract, whether it is written or not. Problems arise when all or some of the most important terms are not defined in writing and the parties then disagree on what they were. Empty – the treaty is not a contract at all and therefore cannot be enforced by law. The parties are not related to it and, when assets have been transferred by the party, they can sometimes recover it from a third party. Examples of a non-concluding contract an agreement reached by incompetent parties, agreements on impossible or illegal acts, etc. A zero contract has not been valid from the beginning. Sir Fredrick Pollock says: ”Any agreement and promise are enforceable by law” Rupertus Meldenius`s saying finds the right balance. He calls for unity in the essential things, the heart of truth in our union with Christ. In the non-essential (it is not the insignificant, but what, if it is missing, does not prevent our union with Christ), it calls for freedom so that all may follow their conscience under the Word and Spirit. In all things, however, there must be love (”Charity” of the Latin Caritas, or ”Love”), ”which connects everything in perfect harmony” (Col.
3:14). (5) errors, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22. Consent would have been caused in this way had it not been granted, but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or error.  Thus, if the agreement is caused by coercion, inappropriate influence, fraud, misrepresentation and error, then ”consent” is not ”free consent.” There has to be some consideration for an agreement to be legally applicable. If the promise giver or any other person has done or renounced something at the request of the promise or undertakes to do or undertake to do or refrain from doing something, an act, such abstinence or promise is designated as a consideration of the promise. In other words, reflection means that an advantage or advantage goes from one party to the other. That is the essence of the treaty. We can also say that thinking means ”something in return.” If one party gives something and the other receives something, the agreement becomes legally enforceable. It is not necessary that the consideration must be in cash, it may be an act or abstinence or promise to do something or not to do it. Reflection may be in the present, in the past or in the future. But it has to be legal and real.