{"id":5601,"date":"2025-08-31T21:19:22","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T15:49:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=5601"},"modified":"2025-08-31T21:21:42","modified_gmt":"2025-08-31T15:51:42","slug":"consideration-under-contract-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/08\/31\/consideration-under-contract-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Consideration under Contract Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author: Manshi\u00a0<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Consideration<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

This note explains the concept of Consideration under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It covers\u00a0 the meaning, essential elements, types, and legal rules related to consideration. Important\u00a0 statutory provisions like Sections 2(d), 10, 25, and 185 have been included to show how the law\u00a0 treats agreements with or without consideration. To make it more practical, landmark case laws\u00a0 are also discussed. This note is written in simple language to help readers clearly understand the\u00a0 role of consideration in forming valid contracts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/b>Introduction\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In contract law, consideration is one of the most important elements required to make an\u00a0 agreement legally valid. It means something of value that is given by one party to the other in\u00a0 return for a promise or an act. This value can be in the form of money, goods, services, or even a\u00a0 promise to do or not do something. Consideration is what makes a contract binding and\u00a0 enforceable in the eyes of law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Without consideration, most agreements are not treated as valid contracts. The law believes that\u00a0 if both parties are not giving something in return, then the agreement is just a one-sided promise\u00a0 and cannot be enforced legally. However, the Indian Contract Act also recognizes a few special\u00a0 situations where a contract can be valid even without consideration, which are called exceptions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    This concept ensures fairness in agreements and protects the interest of both parties by ensuring\u00a0 that each side offers something meaningful in exchange.<\/span>1<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. <\/b>Statutory Definition\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Section 2(d) \u2013 Definition of Consideration\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      “When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained\u00a0 from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing,\u00a0 something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”<\/i><\/b>2<\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

      This definition shows that consideration can be past, present, or future, and can move from the\u00a0 promisee or any other person.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. <\/b>Essentials of a Valid Consideration\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n
      2. a) Must move at the desire of the promisor\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        This means that the act or promise (consideration) should be done only at the request of the\u00a0 person making the promise (promisor). If someone does something on their own without being\u00a0 asked, it is not valid consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        Example: <\/b>If A cleans B\u2019s garden without B asking, and later B promises to pay \u20b9500, it is not\u00a0 valid because the act did not happen at B\u2019s request.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        But if B asks A to clean the garden and then promises to pay \u20b9500, it is valid consideration. <\/span>b) May move from the promisee or any other person\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

        In Indian law, it is not necessary that only the person receiving the promise (promisee) gives the\u00a0 consideration. Even a third party can give it, as long as it is done at the promisor\u2019s desire.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        Example (Chinnaya v. Ramayya): <\/b>A lady gifted land to her daughter with the condition that\u00a0 the daughter would pay a monthly allowance to the donor\u2019s brother. When the daughter refused,\u00a0 the brother sued. The court held that even though the brother didn\u2019t give the consideration, the\u00a0 contract was valid because it was made at the lady\u2019s desire.<\/span>3<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. c) May be past, present, or future\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Consideration can be of <\/span>three types<\/b>:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u2b9a <\/span>Past: <\/b>Something already done before the promise.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          \u2b9a <\/span>Present: <\/b>Something being done at the same time as the promise.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          \u2b9a <\/span>Future: <\/b>A promise to do something later.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Examples:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          \u2b9a <\/span>Past: <\/b>A saves B\u2019s life. Later, B promises to give \u20b91,000 to A. This is past consideration. <\/span>\u2b9a <\/span>Present: <\/b>A delivers goods to B and B pays cash immediately. This is present consideration. <\/span>\u2b9a <\/span>Future: <\/b>A promises to sell his car to B next month, and B promises to pay then. This is\u00a0 future consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. d) Must be real and lawful\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The consideration must be practical and possible to perform, and it should not be illegal or\u00a0 immoral. If it is impossible, fake, or against the law, it will not be accepted.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            Example: <\/b>If A promises to pay B \u20b910,000 if B brings a star from the moon \u2014 this is not real or\u00a0 possible, so it\u2019s invalid consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            Also, if A promises to pay B to steal someone\u2019s mobile phone \u2014 it is unlawful consideration and\u00a0 not allowed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. e) Must have some value in the eyes of law\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The consideration should have some legal value, even if it is not equal to the promise. It can be\u00a0 small, but it must be something the law recognizes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Example: <\/b>A agrees to sell his \u20b91 lakh bike to B for just \u20b91. Even though the amount is small, it\u00a0 is still valid consideration because there is some value, and both parties agreed to it.<\/span>4<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. <\/b>Types of Consideration<\/b><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Under Indian Contract Law, consideration can be classified into three types based on the time at\u00a0 which the act or promise is made: past, present, and future. Each type is legally valid as long as it\u00a0 meets the conditions of Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                3\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. a) Past Consideration\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Past consideration means that the act was already done before the promise was made, but it was\u00a0 done at the request of the promisor. In Indian law, past consideration is valid, unlike English law\u00a0 where it is generally not.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Example: <\/b>A saves B\u2019s son from drowning. After that, B promises to give A \u20b95,000 in return.\u00a0 Here, A had already done the act of saving the boy, but since it was at B\u2019s implied request and B\u00a0 later acknowledged it, this becomes valid past consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Landmark Case: <\/b>Sindha v. The Nawab of Maler Kotla (1885) <\/b>\u2013 <\/b>The court held that past\u00a0 services done at the promisor’s request can be treated as good consideration for a later promise.<\/span>5<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. b) Present Consideration (Executed Consideration)\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Present consideration means something that is done or given at the same time as the promise is\u00a0 made. This is the most common type in daily transactions where goods or services are exchanged\u00a0 for money or other value on the spot.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                    Example: <\/b>A buys a book from B’s shop and pays cash immediately. This is a case of present\u00a0 consideration because the payment and delivery happen at the same time.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                    There is usually no landmark case law specifically for present consideration because it\u2019s so\u00a0 common and straightforward in nature.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. c) Future Consideration (Executory Consideration)\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Future consideration means both parties promise to do something in the future. The act or value\u00a0 is exchanged at a later date. It is valid if both parties are bound by their promises and intend to\u00a0 fulfil them in the future.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Example: <\/b>A agrees to sell his bike to B after one month, and B promises to pay at that time. This\u00a0 is future consideration because both the delivery and payment are to happen later.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      \u00a0<\/p>\n

                      Landmark Case: <\/b>Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914) <\/b>\u2013 <\/b>In this case, the court held that a mere\u00a0 promise to pay without any consideration, present or future, is not enforceable. So if the act is\u00a0 not done or promised in return, no valid future consideration exists.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      All three types \u2014 past, present, and future consideration \u2014 are recognized under Indian law.\u00a0 What matters is that the act is done at the promisor\u2019s desire and has some legal value, even if it’s\u00a0 not equal. These types allow flexibility in enforcing promises made in different situations.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. <\/b>Consideration and Valid Contracts\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        According to <\/span>Section 10 <\/b>of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agreement becomes a valid and\u00a0 enforceable contract only when it is made by the free consent of parties who are competent to\u00a0 contract, for a lawful object, and supported by lawful consideration. This means that\u00a0 consideration is one of the essential elements for forming a valid contract. If there is no\u00a0 consideration, the agreement is generally considered void, unless it falls under the exceptions\u00a0 mentioned in Section 25.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                        In simple terms, the law does not recognize promises made without any return. For a contract to\u00a0 be legally binding, both parties must give something in return \u2014 it could be money, service,\u00a0 goods, or even a promise. This mutual exchange makes the contract fair and balanced.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Example: <\/b>If A agrees to sell his car to B for \u20b91,00,000, and B agrees to pay the amount, both are\u00a0 giving consideration \u2014 A gives the car, B gives the money. This is a valid contract. But if A\u00a0 simply promises to give his car to B as a gift, and B gives nothing in return, then there is no\u00a0 consideration, and such a promise cannot be enforced in a court of law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Case Law: <\/b>Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                        In this case, a person promised to donate money for repairing a mosque, but the court held that\u00a0 since there was no consideration (nothing was done in return), the promise was not enforceable.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                        This case shows that even promises made for good causes need legal consideration to be\u00a0 binding.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        In conclusion, consideration gives life to a contract. Without it, most agreements remain as mere\u00a0 promises, and the courts will not treat them as legally binding contracts \u2014 unless they fall under\u00a0 a legal exception.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. <\/b>Exceptions to the Rule \u2013 \u201cNo Consideration, No Contract\u201d <\/b>Section 25 \u2013 Indian Contract Act, 1872\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Generally, an agreement without consideration is void. But Section 25 provides three important\u00a0 exceptions where an agreement without consideration is still valid and enforceable by law. These\u00a0 are mentioned under Clauses (1), (2), and (3) of Section 25. Let\u2019s understand each in detail:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Clause 25(1) \u2013 Natural Love and Affection\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          If an agreement is made out of natural love and affection between close relatives, it can be valid\u00a0 even without consideration, but it must be:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \u2b9a <\/span>Made in writing,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \u2b9a <\/span>Registered, and\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \u2b9a <\/span>Made between parties who share near relations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Example: <\/b>A father, out of love, promises in writing and registers a document stating that he will\u00a0 give \u20b91 lakh to his daughter. Even though the daughter gives nothing in return, this agreement is\u00a0 valid because it is made out of natural love and affection, is in writing, and is registered.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Case Law: <\/b>Venkataswamy v. Rangaswamy (1903)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          In this case, a written and registered agreement between a brother and sister, made out of\u00a0 affection, was held to be valid even without consideration, as it fulfilled the conditions of Section\u00a0 25(1).<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \u00a0<\/p>\n

                          Clause 25(2) \u2013 Past Voluntary Services\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          If someone has voluntarily done something for another person in the past, and that person later\u00a0 promises to compensate, the promise is valid, even though there was no consideration at the time\u00a0 of the act.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Example: <\/b>A sees B\u2019s house on fire and, without being asked, helps to save it. Later, B promises\u00a0 to pay A \u20b910,000 as a reward. Though A acted voluntarily, the later promise to pay is valid under\u00a0 this clause.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Case Law: <\/b>Kedarnath v. Gorie Mohamed (1886)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          In this case, the defendant promised to donate money to build a town hall. The plaintiff incurred\u00a0 expenses relying on the promise. Even though there was no direct consideration, the court held\u00a0 the promise was enforceable, as the act had been done and accepted in good faith.<\/span>11<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Clause 25(3) \u2013 Promise to Pay Time-Barred Debt\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          If a person owes a debt that is time-barred (meaning the limitation period to file a case has\u00a0 passed), and later promises in writing and signs that they will repay it, the promise is enforceable\u00a0 \u2014 even if the original debt cannot be recovered in court due to time lapse.<\/span>12<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Example: <\/b>A owes B \u20b950,000, but B fails to recover it within the limitation period (3 years).\u00a0 After 5 years, A writes and signs a note saying, \u201cI will pay B \u20b920,000 next month.\u201d This promise\u00a0 is valid and enforceable, even though the debt is old and time-barred.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                          Case Law: <\/b>Kalu Khan v. Makhanu (1908)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                          In this case, a time-barred debt was acknowledged by the debtor in a signed writing. The court\u00a0 held that the new promise was binding, even though the original debt couldn\u2019t be recovered\u00a0 through a suit.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. <\/b>No Consideration Required in Certain Cases\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Section 185 \u2013 Agency\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                            As a general rule, a contract must have consideration to be valid. However, Section 185 of the\u00a0 Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides an important exception to this rule. It states that no\u00a0 consideration is required to create an agency relationship. In simple words, a person (called the\u00a0 principal) can appoint another person (called the agent) to act on their behalf without paying\u00a0 anything in return. The creation of such a relationship does not depend on any exchange of\u00a0 money or promise.<\/span>14<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                            Example: <\/b>A is going abroad and authorizes his friend B to sell his house while he is away. A\u00a0 does not offer B any money for this responsibility. Even though there is no payment or benefit,\u00a0 the agreement is still valid because an agency can be created without consideration under Section\u00a0 185.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                            This provision is based on trust and mutual consent, not payment. The agent\u2019s duty is to act in\u00a0 the best interest of the principal, and the law allows such relationships to be formed freely, even\u00a0 without compensation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                            So, Section 185 is a clear exception to the general rule of \u201cNo consideration, no contract,\u201d and it\u00a0 helps in situations where people wish to authorize someone out of trust, friendship, or\u00a0 convenience, without involving money.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. <\/b>Landmark Case Laws on Consideration\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              \u2756 <\/span>Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              In this case, Durga Prasad had built some shops at his own expense in a town under the orders of\u00a0 the government. Baldeo, who later became a shopkeeper in one of those shops, promised to pay a\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              commission to Durga Prasad as a token of appreciation. However, there was no request from\u00a0 Baldeo for the construction of those shops.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Judgment:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              The court held that there was no valid consideration, as the act of building the shops was not\u00a0 done at the desire of the promisor (Baldeo). So, the promise to pay was not enforceable.<\/span>15<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \u2756 <\/span>Chinnaya v. Ramayya (1882)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              In this case, an elderly lady transferred her property to her daughter with a condition that the\u00a0 daughter would pay a fixed sum of money annually to the lady\u2019s brother (uncle). The daughter\u00a0 accepted the condition but later refused to pay.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Judgment:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              The court ruled that even though the uncle (the promisee) had not given any consideration, the\u00a0 promise was still enforceable because the consideration moved from a third party (the lady), and\u00a0 it was at the desire of the promisor. This case established that consideration may move from a\u00a0 person other than the promisee.<\/span>16<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \u2756 <\/span>Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              In this case, a person promised to donate a certain amount of money to help with the repair of a\u00a0 mosque. However, no steps had been taken based on that promise. When the person later refused\u00a0 to pay, the matter went to court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Judgment:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              The court held that the promise was not enforceable, as it was a mere promise to donate and no\u00a0 act had been done or expenses incurred in return. Since there was no consideration, the\u00a0 agreement was void.<\/span>17<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \u2756 <\/span>Kedarnath v. Gorie Mohamed (1886)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              In this case, the defendant had promised to donate money to help build a town hall. Relying on\u00a0 that promise, the plaintiff incurred expenses by hiring a contractor and starting construction.\u00a0 Later, the defendant refused to pay.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Judgment:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              The court held that the promise was valid and enforceable because the plaintiff had acted upon\u00a0 the promise and incurred expenses, which was sufficient consideration. The case shows that if a\u00a0 promisee changes their position based on a promise, it can be enforced.<\/span>18<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \u2756 <\/span>Thomas v. Thomas (1842)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              In this English case, a man, before dying, expressed his wish that his wife should be allowed to\u00a0 live in his house. After his death, his executors agreed to this and allowed the wife to stay in the\u00a0 house in return for a small rent of \u00a31 per year.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Judgment:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                              The court held that even though the rent was a small amount, it was still a valid consideration, as\u00a0 it had some legal value. This case established the principle that consideration need not be equal\u00a0 in value \u2014 it just needs to have some value in the eyes of law.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. <\/b>Conclusion<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Consideration is one of the most important elements for making a contract legally valid. It refers\u00a0 to something of value given by one party to another in return for a promise or an act. According\u00a0 to Section 2(d) and Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract without consideration is\u00a0 generally not enforceable. However, the law also recognizes certain exceptions under Section 25\u00a0 and Section 185, where an agreement can still be valid without consideration \u2014 such as in cases\u00a0 of natural love and affection, past voluntary services, time-barred debts, and agency\u00a0 relationships. Through various landmark judgments, Indian courts have made it clear that\u00a0 consideration can be past, present, or future and may even come from a third party. Overall,\u00a0 consideration plays a vital role in ensuring fairness and mutual obligation in contractual\u00a0 relationships, and without it, most agreements are treated as mere promises and not binding\u00a0 contracts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. <\/b>References\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/lawbhoomi.com\/consideration-under-indian-contract-act-1872\/ <\/span>\u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/2187\/2\/A187209.pdf<\/span> \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/lawbhoomi.com\/chinnaya-vs-ramayya\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/consideration-in-contract-law\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/hallellis.co.uk\/contractual-consideration\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/www.steveharveylaw.com\/blog\/2022\/11\/valid-consideration-for-a-contract\/ <\/span>\u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/no-consideration-no-contract\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1819135\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/kedarnath-bhattacharji-v-gorie-mohammad-case\/ <\/span>\u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/www.writinglaw.com\/section-185-contract-act\/\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u2714 <\/span>https:\/\/www.drishtijudiciary.com\/landmark-judgement\/indian-contract-act\/durga-prasad-v baldeo-and-ors-1881-ilr-3-all-221<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                  Author: Manshi\u00a0 Consideration\u00a0 This note explains the concept of Consideration under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It covers\u00a0 the meaning, essential elements, types, and legal rules related to consideration. Important\u00a0 statutory provisions like Sections 2(d), 10, 25, and 185 have been included to show how the law\u00a0 treats agreements with or without consideration. To make […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[114],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5601"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5601"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5601\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5612,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5601\/revisions\/5612"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}