"Provided there be _some_ benefit to the contractor, or _some_ loss,
trouble, inconvenience, or charge imposed upon the contractor, so as to
constitute a _consideration_, the courts are not willing to enter into
the question whether that consideration be ADEQUATE in value to the
thing which is promised in exchange for it. Very gross inadequacy,
indeed, would be an index of fraud, and might afford evidence of the
existence of fraud; and fraud, as I have already stated to you, is a
ground on which the performance of any contract may be resisted. But if
there be no suggestion that the party promising has been defrauded, or
deceived, the court will not hold the promise invalid upon the ground of
mere _inadequacy_; for it is obvious, that to do so would be to exercise
a sort of tyranny over the transactions of parties who have a right to
fix their own value upon their own labour and exertions, but would be
prevented from doing so were they subject to a legal scrutiny on each
occasion, on the question whether the bargain had been such as a prudent
man would have entered into. Suppose, for instance, I think fit to give
£1000, for a picture not worth £50: it is foolish on my part; but, if
the owner do not take me in, as the phrase is, no _injury_ is done. I
_may_ have my reasons. Possibly I may think that I am a better judge of
painting than my neighbours, and that I have detected in the picture the
touch of Raphael or Correggio. It would be hard to prevent me from
buying it, and hard to prevent my neighbour from making the best of his
property, provided he do not take me in by telling me a false story
about it. Accordingly, in the absence of fraud, mere _inadequacy_ of
consideration is no ground for avoiding a contract."[8]

[8] Pp. 88-96.

Those who are acquainted with the practical difficulties of this