The consideration must move at the desire of the promisor. In other words, to make a contract binding and enforceable, it is not sufficient that there is consideration but also that consideration has been supplied at desire of the promisor. An act cannot be constituted valid when an act is done at the desire of a third party and not the promisor. For example, D constructed a market at the instance of the Collector of a district. The occupants of the shops in the said market promised to pay D a commission on articles sold through their shops. Therefore, it was held that there was no consideration because the money was not spent by the plaintiff at the request of the defendants but voluntarily for a third person, thus the contract was void.
Yes, the consideration can move from a stranger. This is in reference to the doctrine of constructive consideration. Where the term any other person, that is a person other than the promisee, is technically referred to as stranger to consideration. In other words, if there is a consideration for a promise, it is immaterial who furnishes the same.
This is further explained through, where A by a deed of gift transferred certain property to her daughter, with a direction that the daughter should pay an annuity to A’s brother, as had been done by A. And on the same day the daughter executed writing in favor of the brother, agreeing to pay the annuity. Later, she declined to fulfill her promise saying that no consideration had moved from her uncle (A’s brother). It was held by the court that the words the promisee or any other person in Section 2(d) clearly show that the consideration need not move from the promisee, it may move from any other person. Therefore, A’s brother was entitled to maintain the suit.