This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Whether a consideration is inadequate or not, depends upon the facts as they exist at the time of the transaction, and not upon the facts as they develop thereafter.1 A conveyance of all the grantor's property in consideration of a contract for future support can not be said to be on so inadequate a consideration as to be unconscionable.2 An assignment of a four-thousand-dollar bank deposit, in consideration for a promise to support a woman who was eighty-four years old, and who in fact lived but a few months, is not inadequate.9 A contract by which a daughter agrees to take care of her father and support him during the rest of his life, in consideration of which the father agrees to convey to her land which is worth about fifteen hundred dollars, is not upon an inadequate consideration, although the father is advanced in years, suffering from tuberculosis, and is not likely to live over a year.4 The fact that the contract provides for payment by the vendee in advance, does not of itself show inadequacy of consideration.5 If a contract to furnish support in consideration of the conveyance of land is upon adequate consideration when it is entered into, it is not rendered voidable by the fact that the market value of such land advances materially.6 A promise by A to work for B during B's life, in consideration of a share in B's property upon his death, is not upon inadequate consideration.7
27Magee v. Magee, 174 Cal. 276, 102 Pac, 1022.
28Magee v. Magee, 174 Cal. 276, 162 Pac. 1023.
1Illinois. Aldrich v. Aldrieh (10.), 122 N. E. 472.
Iowa. Drefahl v. Security Savings Bank, 132 la. 563, 107 N. W. 179.
Mississippi. Horn v. Beatty, 86 Miss. 504, 37 So. 833.
Missouri. Campbell v. McLaughlin, - Mo. - , 205 S. W. 18.
2Canipbell v. McLaughlin, - Mo. - , 205 S. W. 18 Scolf v. Collin County, 80 Tex. 514, 16 S. W. 314.
3 Drefahl v. Security Savings Bank, 132 la. 563, 107 N. W. 179.
4 Lee v. Lee, 258 Mo. 599, 167 S. W. 1030.
5Prichard v. MuIhall, 140 la. 1, 116 N. W. 43.
6Aldrich v. Aldrich (111.), 122 N. B. 472.
7 Taylor v. Holyfield (Kan.), 180 Pac. 208.