Example 1: The Rich Uncle. The rich uncle of a struggling college student learns at the graduation party that his nephew graduated with honours. Swept away by good feeling, the uncle promises the nephew a trip around the world. Later the uncle reneges on his promise. The student sues his uncle, asking the court to compel the uncle to pay for a trip around the world.

People often change the form of a promise in an attempt to increase their certainty that courts will enforce it according to its terms. For example, suppose the rich uncle in Example 1 wanted to assure his nephew of the enforceability of the promise of a trip around the world. Courts are more certain to enforce bargain-promises than gift promises. Tradition prescribes how to change the form of a promise from a gift to a bargain. According to tradition, the uncle would solemnly offer to give his nephew a trip around the world in exchange for a peppercorn (a piece of pepper), and the nephew would solemnly give the uncle a peppercorn. More recently, people disguise a gift as a bargain by intoning the phrase “in consideration for which, I give you $1.” Will this charade make the uncle’s promise enforceable under the bargain theory? Answer this question by using the doctrine that courts inquire into the presence of consideration but not its adequacy. Also answer this question using the doctrine that courts should refuse to enforce extremely unfair bargains