R2d § 79

Element: if the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of (a) a gain, advantage, or benefit to the promisor or a loss, disadvantage, or detriment to the promisee; or (b) equivalence in the values exchanged; or (c) mutuality of obligation.

This is the "courts do not weigh adequacy" rule.

Hamer v. Sidway operationalizes (a) and (b): no benefit to the uncle, no equivalence; doesn't matter.

Common misunderstanding: students think a gross disparity in values destroys consideration. § 79 says no. Disparity may signal that the recital is a sham or that something else is going on (fraud, duress, unconscionability): but it does not itself defeat consideration. Adequacy is a defense doctrine; consideration is a formation doctrine. Keep the categories separate.