to interfere with the arrangements made by the parties, even where the contract might appear to have been made at an undervalue. Generally, the refusal of the courts to take account of the apparent inadequacy of consideration has been applauded by economists on the basis : The rule that consideration must be sufficient, but need not be adequate appears at first to be contradictory. The extent to which there is more than a verbal contradiction depends on the meaning to be ascribed to ‘sufficiency’. Broadly ‘insufficiency’ in this context means that what is given in return for the promise must have some value, in the eyes of the law. Does this mean that

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-59

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

ABSTRACT

Generally, the refusal of the courts to take account of the apparent inadequacy of consideration has been applauded by economists27 on the basis that the courts are not in the best position to assess value. This is something best left to the contracting parties themselves so as to most efficiently move resources to the person who values them the most. However, in some instances, the presumption that a contractual exchange does increase value may be rebutted, in which case, the courts may have regard to the adequacy of consideration. For example, it will be seen that a key issue in deciding whether a court may grant equitable relief on the basis of undue influence is whether the consideration is grossly unfair.28 Moreover, there may be other instances in which the court finds itself in a position where it must have regard to the question whether one of the contracting parties has received value for money. For example, in deciding whether goods sold are of satisfactory quality, the court must have regard, inter alia, to the price paid.29 Thus, if a person pays a high price, he can expect a correspondingly high standard of quality.30