Consideration in a contract must be:

**The reasoning** In contract law, **consideration** is what each party gives to make the agreement binding — it's the "price" of the promise. The golden rule is: consideration must be **sufficient** (meaning it has *some* legal value, no matter how small) but **need not be adequate** (the law doesn't care if it's a "fair" deal). Think of it this way: If you agree to sell your ₦50,000 phone for ₦5,000, that's your choice. The ₦5,000 is *sufficient* consideration (it's something of value), even though it's clearly not *adequate* (not equal in worth). Courts won't interfere in bad bargains between capable adults — "freedom of contract" principle. **Why the wrong options tempt you** - **A (Adequate and past)**: "Past consideration" is actually *invalid* — you can't make a contract based on something already done. And we just learned adequacy isn't required. - **C (Always money)**: Consideration can be a promise, service, or goods — not just cash. - **D (Free)**: If it's free, there's no consideration at all, making the contract unenforceable (it becomes a gift). **Quick takeaway** "Courts care that you got *something*, not that you got a *good deal*" — sufficient beats adequate every time.