Batsakis v. Demotsis (1949) 226 S.W.2d 673
Author: Chuck M.

P = Tried to enforce his loan with D

D = Loaned money from Batsakis during WWII

Procedural posture:       Lower ct. found for P in the amount of $750 plus interest but P appealed to obtain a judgment in the full amount.

F:         D loaned 500,000 drachmae from P (appx. $25) in exchange for a promissory note in the amount of $2000 plus 8% per annum. Historical setting was during WWII at a time when Greece was poor, starving, and isolated from the rest of the world – D could not access her money and food was extremely difficult to obtain.

I:          Was the consideration of $25 adequate to justify a legally binding contract?

P makes two arguments: 1) want of consideration (i.e., none – and this argument fails immediately), and 2) failure of consideration (inadequate consideration)

R:         Courts will inquire into the legal sufficiency of the consideration, but not the adequacy of the consideration.

A:         “D got exactly what she contracted for according to her own testimony” (pg. 146, bottom).  P appealed the trial Ct. decision in his favor because they did not give a verdict for the full amount due. He won a judgment for the full amount on appeal.

C:         Ct. held that the inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract. In this case each party met all other elements of a contract and got exactly what they contracted for.