The general rule is that, if there is a reflection, “the relevance of the consideration is not verified”. This means that as long as the contract is not “ruthless”, the courts will not verify whether a negotiated promise or a performance is equivalent to the counter-promise or performance. In essence, the courts consider that the parties are in the best position to determine its fairness. See Batsakis v. Demotsis, 226 p.W. 2D 673 (Tex. 1949). For example:  (4) The applicant also insists that the debtor of the bankruptcy has obtained immunity from tax liability and other taxes on the Long Island house through the agreement. The fact is that he was never able to charge those expenses.
He was undoubtedly used to paying them, as he had paid many other expenses for the claimant; However, those payments were either free of charge or the simultaneous price of continuing his unlawful sexual relations with the applicant. Does the fact that the parties have recalled their agreement in a sealed contract affect their applicability? Should the presence of a seal be a court`s likelihood of initial enforcement? Do you think contract law should provide a means for parties to make legally enforceable pledges of donations? Please note that if Michael and Scottie intended to get a good deal, so Michael considers the $5 as an actual payment for the car and Scottie considers the car as what he received for his $5, the court will consider this an appropriate consideration, no matter how disproportionate the consideration seems.  (5) Finally, it is stated that the parties intended to conclude a valid agreement. It is non-sequitur to say that the agreement is therefore valid. One man can promise to give a gift to another and can put the promise in as solemn and formal a document as possible; But apart from exceptional cases, such as perhaps as charitable subscriptions, the promise is not kept. The parties can appeal to the respect of the house plates, but if there is no effective counterpart, there is no legally defensible contract. What the debtor of the bankruptcy clearly intended to do in this case was an agreement to make a financial contribution to the applicant by reason of her previous cohabitation with her and, as has already been said, there was no consideration of such an agreement. While agreements are normally consideration and are legally enforceable, there are four types of contracts that are not enforceable because the agreement entered into is not an “appropriate” consideration.
You are: it is useful and interesting, be careful: the agreement is the broadest term, that is to say an agreement between the parties. The good deal is the continuation of the agreement to exchange promises (or a promise of performance) regardless of the counterparty. With sufficient consideration (and other legal requirements), a contract is concluded. Reciprocity of commitment: the agreement of both parties to a contract in one way or another  Proof of claim asserts that a total of US$375,700 was due for breach of the agreement, which consists of $250,000 for non-payment of US$1,000 per month; $99,200 for non-compliance with the insurance policy; and $26,500 for non-payment of rent. . . .