Also known as:inadequate consideration · inadequacy consideration · adequacy of consideration
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
in contract law
A disparity between the values exchanged in a bargain. Gross disparity alone does not invalidate the agreement but may support a finding of unconscionability or provide grounds to deny specific performance.
2
in corporate law
A board determination that property or benefits received for shares meet a minimum threshold of value. Once made, the determination conclusively establishes that the shares are validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sense 1
1
in contract law
A disparity between the values exchanged in a bargain. Gross disparity alone does not invalidate the agreement but may support a finding of unconscionability or provide grounds to deny specific performance.
Examples2
Modification Without New Value
After National Metal Crafters began performance on a parts contract, Wisconsin Knife Works demanded a price reduction and threatened to cancel if refused. National Metal Crafters agreed to the lower price without receiving any additional promise or benefit in return. The modification failed for lack of consideration even though the original bargain remained enforceable.
Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters781 F.2d 1285, 1286
Continued Employment as Consideration
Interactive Data presented Foley with a new noncompetition agreement after he had already begun at-will employment. Foley signed without receiving any raise, bonus, or other tangible benefit beyond continuation of the same job. The court held that the continued at-will employment supplied sufficient consideration to support the agreement.
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.47 Cal. 3d 654, 254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373
Frequently Asked2
Does mere inadequacy of consideration prevent enforcement of a contract?+
No. Inadequacy of consideration does not of itself invalidate a bargain. Only when the disparity is so gross as to shock the conscience or combine with other factors indicating unconscionability or fraud will a court refuse enforcement or deny specific performance.
When may a court treat gross inadequacy of consideration as evidence of fraud?+
When the inadequacy is accompanied by other inequitable circumstances, such as weakness in the bargaining process or a vulnerable party, courts may view the disparity as corroborating fraud or constructive fraud and may rescind the contract.
Sense 2
2
in corporate law
A board determination that property or benefits received for shares meet a minimum threshold of value. Once made, the determination conclusively establishes that the shares are validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.
Examples1
Board Valuation of Mixed Assets
PrairieTech's board approved issuance of shares to Red River Farmers Partnership for storage equipment, an exclusive five-year supply contract, and a promissory note. An outside investor challenged the issuance on the ground that future crop deliveries rendered the consideration inadequate. The board's prior determination that the package was adequate rendered the shares validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.
Frequently Asked3
Who decides whether consideration for newly issued shares is adequate?+
The board of directors must determine adequacy before shares are issued. Once the board makes that determination, it is conclusive on the questions of whether the shares are validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.
Can a corporation issue shares for future services or an unsecured promissory note?+
Yes. Permissible consideration includes contracts for services to be performed and promissory notes. The board's determination that such consideration is adequate renders the shares validly issued, and the shares become fully paid and nonassessable once the corporation receives the authorized consideration.
What happens if the board never formally determines that consideration for shares is adequate?+
The statute requires the board to make the determination before issuance. Without it, the conclusive effect on validity, full payment, and nonassessability does not attach, leaving the shares open to challenge.
is "so gross as to shock the conscience of the Court". Wroblewski v Wroblewski , 329 Mich 61, 67; 44 NW2d 869 (1950), Olson v Rasmussen , 304 Mich 639, 643; 8 NW2d 668 (1943), Hake v…
adequacy of consideration
, we do not disagree with Corbin’s conclusion that the validity of a restraining contract such as a noncompetition agreement should be “determined by weighing as best we can the sum-total of…
Business Associations Corporations and LlcsFinancing the organization · Sources of financeUBEFoundational