Why past consideration is pernicious

When someone offers a “no strings attached” gift, many of us pause. Experience teaches that few things are free. A vague sense of debt creeps in, and with it the suspicion that we now owe something—undefined, open‑ended, and uncomfortable. The same dynamic shows up in deals. In contract law, it is called past consideration. It is pernicious because it confuses gratitude with obligation and muddies today’s bargain with yesterday’s favors.

Gifts, guilt, and the haze of obligation

Most of us have learned that guilt can be used as pressure. When a benefit arrives first and explanations follow later, the recipient can be nudged into “evening the score.” Because the debt is nebulous, the demand can expand. This view may sound jaded, but it is common among people who have had guilt used against them. The risk is not generosity; it is ambiguity. Undefined obligation corrodes trust because neither side can point to what was promised, to whom, and on what terms.

What the law says about past consideration

Contracts are exchanges. Consideration is the value each side bargains for and trades. For a contract to form, the exchange must be clear: I promise X in return for your promise Y. What was given or done before that bargain was defined is not part of the deal by default; that is past consideration.

Delivered benefits, favors, or efforts that predate the agreement do not, on their own, supply the consideration needed to form a new contract. If the parties want to account for what happened earlier, they must say so expressly and include it in the new agreement’s accounting—what counts, at what value, and how it offsets or obligates future performance. Otherwise, yesterday’s acts remain yesterday’s acts. Gratitude may be warranted; enforceable obligation is not.

How pressure distorts consent

Because past favors can create a sense of debt, less‑than‑scrupulous actors sometimes lean on that feeling to push for terms after the fact. The tactic relies on social pressure rather than a clear exchange: “After all I’ve done, you should agree.” This blurs consent. Parties sign not because the bargain makes sense, but to relieve guilt. That is a poor foundation for cooperation and a ready source of future disputes. When expectations are not defined, accountability is impossible, and conflict gets resolved by picking a side rather than pointing to shared terms.

The discipline: separate generosity from obligation

You cannot control how others behave, but you can control your stance. Treat generosity as generosity. If you give first, do it freely and without expecting a contractual return unless and until you document the exchange. Do not treat a favor as a debt. When you want obligation, make the bargain explicit: name the promises, the timing, and the value, and include any prior contributions in the accounting on purpose, not by implication.

This is not cynicism; it is clarity. Contracts work when both sides know what they are trading and why. Past consideration undermines that clarity by importing unpriced, undefined expectations into the deal. Keep yesterday’s gratitude in its place. Put today’s exchange in writing. That is how you protect trust, reduce friction, and build agreements that last.