The consideration must be of some value, bat this value need not be adequate to the promise. The law never undertakes to make the terms of the contract for the contracting parties but leaves the parties free to put what value they see fit upon the property given, or the work done, as consideration. The common law had a saying in early times that a peppercorn could be a consideration for the release of a debt of £100. In Brooks vs. Haigh,4 it was said that the surrender of a piece of property void in law as an evidence of indebtedness, was sufficient to support a guarantee of £10,000. "Where the animus contrahendi is preset it is difficult to imagine an act or detriment so insignificant as to be incapable of being a consideration. Anything of possible value in the eye of the law is sufficient; and for the purpose of determining this the law looks, or should look, through the eyes of the parties themselves. Every consideration is for all purposes the full legal equivalent of the promise for which it is given; and when the diverse appetites of the parties concur in saying there is such equivalence the courts do not allow it to be gainsaid." 5 The principle, however, does not apply in the case where the consideration on each side is the payment, or the promise to pay, a sum of money, the sums to be different in amount.6

3 Crawford vs. Millspaugh, 13 Johns., 87; Weaver vs. Fries, 85 I11., 356-361; Litz vs. Goosling, 93 Ky., 185-187; 19 S. W. 527

4 Brooks vs. Haigh, 10 Ad. and El. 323.

5 Streets Foundation of Legal Liability, Vol. II, Page 70.

Inadequacy of consideration may also be shown as corroborative evidence of fraud or undue influence,7 and it has been held that where the inadequacy of consideration is so gross as to shock the conscience, this fact alone may be sufficient evidence of such fraud or undue influence.8