"Now, with regard to the question,--_What does the law of England
recognise as a consideration capable of supporting a simple contract?_
the short practical rule" [after adverting to a well-known passage in
Blackstone, for which he substitutes his own definition] "is, that _any
benefit accruing to him who makes the promise, or any loss, trouble, or
disadvantage undergone by, or charge imposed upon, him to who it is
made_, is a sufficient consideration in the eye of the law to sustain an
assumpsit. Thus, let us suppose that I promise to pay B L50 at
Christmas. Now there must be a _consideration_ to sustain this promise.
It may be that B has lent me L50; here is a consideration by way of
_benefit_ or _advantage_ to me. It may be that he has performed, or has
agreed to perform, some laborious service for me; if so, here is a
consideration by way of _inconvenience_ to _him_, and of advantage to me
at the same time. It may be that he is to labour for a third person at
my request; here will be _inconvenience_ to him, without advantage to
_me_: or it may be that he has become surety for some one at my request;
here is a _charge_ imposed upon him: any of these will be a good
consideration to sustain the promise on my part....

"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
L1000, for a picture not worth L50: it is foolish on my part; but, if
the owner do not take me