The consideration that benefits the contract for one party (z.B obtaining money) is the burden of the other (z.B payment of money). Suppose B commits a misdemeanor against A, which causes $5,000 in compensation and $3,000 in damages. As there is no guarantee that A would win against B if it were a trial, A may agree to drop the case if B pays the $5,000 in compensation. That is a sufficient consideration, because B`s consideration is a guaranteed takeover, and the idea is that B should only pay $5,000 instead of $8,000. There must be some kind of connection between a promise and the reflection that is offered to sustain the promise. There are no plans to “refrain from conduct that it should never pursue.”  Reflection must at least have been an incentive to enter into the promise. The consideration means a promise of “negotiated” performance or return. To meet this requirement, the promise of performance or performance must be “sought by the Promisor in exchange for its promise” and “made by promise in exchange for that promise.” Reflection is considered “quid pro quo,” in Latin for “this for the.” A return commitment may be given to the promisor or a third party. In a case of the Seventh Circuit, Meyer had entered into two previous loan agreements with firestone Financial Corporation.  Meyer stated that he had been informed by a representative that Firestone Financial Corporation would finance its purchases in 2013 on the same terms as the first two loan contracts. Meyer therefore purchased equipment to continue its activities.
Firestone then refused to extend Mr. Meyer`s loan on the same terms and was late in his equipment purchases. The court found that the Promissory Estoppel had been applied because there was a clear promise made by Meyer and a violation that resulted. Therefore, despite the lack of consideration, Firestone Financial Corporation was bound by its promise. Note that the remedy could be limited to what Meyer spent depending on the agreement. He was unable to force the company to give him the full credit he had been promised. The bidder must be considered, although the consideration should not be paid to the supplier. For example, it is a good consideration for Person A to pay Person C for services provided by Person B. If there are common promises, just move away from one of the promises. Promises are illusory when the benefit is so indeterminate that it cannot be implemented or when it is “totally optional.” Even if the promisor can make a promise of performance if performance is not necessary — then there is no contract.  Contracts supported by a low counterparty are enforceable since the courts consider the consideration of a commitment rather than considering the economic benefits of the contract. In an earlier case in Massachusetts, a man`s son became ill in a foreign country.
 The complainant, a good Samaritan, was caring for the son until his death. After learning that the Good Samaritan was caring for his son, the Father promised to pay the man for his services and time. The Tribunal found that there was no quid pro quo, as the services were provided prior to the engagement. Any moral obligation that the Father may have felt as a valid consideration. It`s a free promise.