Inadequacy of consideration is not, by itself, ground for granting equitable relief as by rescission or cancellation.1 If there is no undue influence or fraud, a party may exact whatever consideration he wishes if he can induce the other party to assent thereto.2 It has been said in obiter that inadequacy may be in equity a ground for setting aside an executory contract, but not for canceling an executed conveyance.3

23Warner v. Marshall, 166 Ind. 88, 75 N. E. 582.

24Drefahl v. Rabe,132 la. 563, 107 N. W. 179.

25 Schmidt v. J. F. Schmidt Bros. Co., 272 111. 340, 111 N. E. 1025.

26 Warren Mfg. Co. v. City of Baltimore, 119 Md. 188, 86 Atl. 502.

See Sec. 469.

27 See ante, this section.

28 See Sec. 465 et seq.

1 Alabama. Juzan v. Toulmin, 9 Ala. 662, 44 Am. Dec. 448; Sellers v. Knight, 185 Ala. 96, 64 So. 329; Chance v. Chapman, 195 Ala. 613, 70 So. 676; Hassell v. Hassell, - Ala. - , 77 So. 716.

Colorado. Meyer v. Nelson, - Colo. - , 168 Pac. 1175.

Florida. Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208, 61 So. 579.

Illinois. Van Gundy v. Steele, 261 111. 206, 103 N. E. 754.

Iowa. Lewis v. Arbuckle, 85 la. 335, 16 L. R. A. 677, 52 N. W. 237; Hem-street v. Wheeler, 100 la. 282, 69 N. W. 518. (Property worth six thousand dollars conveyed to a daughter for three thousand dollars and a contract for support of both parents for life.)

Kentucky. Beard v. Campbell, 9 Ky. (2 A. K. Mar.) 125, 12 Am. Dec. 362.

North Carolina. Leonard v. Power Co., 155 N. Car. 10, 70 S. E. 1061; Hodges v. Wilson, 165 N. Car. 323, 81 S. E. 340.

Oklahoma. Bruner v. Cobb, 37 Okla. 228, L. R. A. 1916D, 377, 131 Pac. 165.

Pennsylvania. Davidson v. Little, 22 Pa. St. 245, 60 Am. Dec. 81.

South Carolina. Johnson v. Franklin, 58 S. Car. 394, 36 S. E. 664.

Texas. Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326, 46 Am. Dec. 108.

Washington. White v. Johnson, 4 Wash. 113, 29 Pac. 932.

West Virginia. Bade v. Feay, 63 W. Va. 166, 61 S. E. 348; Garten v. Lay-ton, 76 W. Va. 63, 84 S. E. 1058.

Wisconsin. Cooper v. Reilly, 90 Wis. 427, 63 X. W. 885; Krause v. Reichel, 167 Wis. 360, 167 N. W. 817.

See also, Watson v. Watson (Kan.), 180 Pac. 242.

Rescission will be granted for inadequacy of consideration only if so gross as to shock the conscience,4 but if sufficiently gross, the inadequacy is evidence of fraud;5 or, as is said in some jurisdictions, such inadequacy will cause the court to scrutinize the transaction carefully.6 A contract of compromise will not be set aside unless the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience.7

It has even been held that inadequacy not rendering the contract unconscionable will not prevent the remedy of specific performance from being given.8 In many jurisdictions, however, equity will not enforce the contract unless it is fair and just,9 and in some cases inadequacy is regarded as making the contract unfair and unjust.10

2 Bruner v. Cobb, 37 Okla. 228, L. R. A. 1916D, 377, 131 Pac. 165.

3 Davidson v. Little, 22 Pa. St. 245, 60 Am. Dec. 81.

4 Wilson v. Mullins, - Ala. - , 75 So. 900; Krause v. Reichel, 167 Wis. 360, 167 N. W. 817. See also, Meyer v. Nelson, - Colo. - , 168 Pac. 1175.

5 Walker v. Bourgeois, 88 N. J. Eq. 124, 102 Atl. 250.

6Rembe v. Ferguson, - la - , 166 N. W. 720.

7 Gill v. Southern Pacific Co., 174 Cal. 84, 161 Pac. 1153.

8 United States. Erwin v. Parham, 53 U. S. (12 How.) 197, 13 L. ed. 952; Heyward v. Bradley, 179 Fed. 325, 102 C. C. A. 509.

Alabama. South, etc., R. R. v. R. R., 98 Ala. 400, 39 Am. St. Rep. 74, 13 So. 682.

Colorado. McDermott v. Lindquist, (Colo.), 179 Pac. 147.

Kansas. Greenwood v. Greenwood, 97 Kan. 380, 155 Pac. 807; Stahl v. Stevenson, 102 Kan. 447, 844, 171 Pac. 1164.

Kentucky. Schmidtz v. Ry., 101 Ky. 441, 38 L. R. A. 809, 41 S. W. 1015.

Maryland. Chicora Fertilizer Co. v.

Dunan, 91 Md.144, 50 L. R. A. 401, 46 Atl. 347.

Massachusetts. Lee v. Kirby, 104 Mass. 420; Roberts v. Cambridge, 170 Mass. 199, 49 N. E. 84; Nickerson v. Bridges, 216 Mass. 416, 103 N. E. 939.

New Jersey. McCormick v. Stephany, 57 N. J. Eq. 257, 41 Atl. 840; Madison Athletic Association v. Brittin, 60 N. J. Eq. 160, 46 Atl. 652.

New York. Seymour v. Delancy, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 445, 15 Am. Dec. 270.

North Carolina. Combes v. Adams, 150 N. Car. 64, 63 S. E. 186.

Ohio. Galloway v. Barr, 12 Ohio 354.

Rhode Island. Sweeney v. Brow, 35 R. 1. 227, 86 Atl. 115.

West Virginia. Conaway v. Sweeney, 24 W. Va. 643.

9Kenyon v. Weissberg, 240 Fed. 536; Anthony v. Eve, - S. Car. - . 95 S. E. 513. So under the North Dakota Code: Compiled Laws (1913), Sec. 7198. Beebe v. Hanson, - N. D. - , 169 N. W. 31.

10 Indiana. Thayer v. Younge, 86 Ind. 259.

Iowa. Steltzer v. Compton, 167 la. 266, 149 N. W. 243.

Kentucky. Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. Williams (Ky.), 209 S. W. 59.

By statute in some jurisdictions, specific performance is refused unless the consideration is just and reasonable.11 If the contract is harsh and unconscionable, specific performance will be denied.12 The inadequacy of consideration may, however, be so gross as to shock the conscience; and in such a case the doctrines which apply to unconscionable contracts will prevent its enforcement.13