Sec 165

Inadequacy of price is in itself no ground for setting aside a contract. A vendor may conscientiously depreciate his own property, and to say that he shall not sell at the price he himself fixes is to say he shall not sell at all.-He may be desirous, also, of benefiting a friend or relative by giving him a property at a low price, the object being not to create a feeling of absolute dependence, but to aid, and at the same time to require exertion of some kind in return; and when such an intention is shown, the conveyance is one which, so far as this question is concerned, should not be set aside. Value, also, is uncertain in its limits; and unless there be gross inadequacy, courts are unwilling to make it a condition of the validity of a conveyance.1 "The value of a thing," says Judge Story, "is what it will produce; and it admits of no precise standard. It must be in its nature fluctuating, and will depend upon ten thousand different circumstances. One man, in the disposal of his property, may sell it for less than another would. He may sell it under a pressure of circumstances, which may induce him to part with it at a particular time. If courts of equity were to unravel all these transactions, they would throw everything into confusion, and set afloat the contracts of mankind. Such a consequence would, of itself, be sufficient to show the inconvenience and impracticability, if not the injustice, of adopting the doctrine that mere inadequacy of consideration should form a distinct ground for relief."2 But when there is such gross inadequacy as to lead to the inference that one party either acted in ignorance of what he was doing, or was unduly influenced by the other party, then a court of equity will interfere.1 There must, however, be "such unconscionableness or inadequacy" "made out as would (to use an expressive phrase) shock the conscience, and amount in itself to conclusive and decisive evidence of fraud. And when there are other ingredients in the case of a suspicious nature, or peculiar relations between the parties, gross inadequacy of price must necessarily furnish the most vehement presumption of fraud."2 And when there was any mental weakness on the part of the party conveying and he was not independently advised, the conveyance, as against him or his personal representatives, will not be permitted to stand.3 A strong element in the proof of imposition in such cases is the needy circumstances of the vendor, exposing him peculiarly to the wary rapacity of a particular party to whom he may apply for aid.4 But only the party injured or his representatives, so it has been held, can take advantage of inadequacy of price.5

Gross inadequacy of consideration may lead to inference of fraud.

1 Infra, sec 239, 518 ; Story, Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 38 a, 245 ; Peacock v. Evans, 16 Ves. 512 ; Borell v. Dann, 2 Hare, 440 ; Harrison v. Guest, 6 D. M. G. 424; 8 H. L. C. 481; Rosher v. Williams, L. R. 20 Eq. 210 ; Eyre v. Potter, 15 How. U. S. 42; Follett v. Rose, 3 McL. 332 ; Hutmacher v. Harris, 38 Penn. St. 491 ; Baker v. Roberts, 14 Ind. 552; Schnell v. Nell, 17 Ind.

29 ; Davidson v. Carter, 55 Iowa, 117 ; Robinson v. Schley, 6 Ga. 515.

2 Story, Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 245, citing Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox, 383 ; Harrison v. Guest, 8 H. L. C. 481; Warner v. Daniels, 1 Wood. & M. 110 ; Hamet v. Dundass, 4 Barr, 178. That the suffiicency of consideration will not ordinarily be determined by the courts, see infra, sec 517.