Claudia, the idea of the peppercorn is simply a reflection of the notion that courts will not typically inquire into the adequacy of the consideration being received or offered by either party. That means that a contract is a contract, and you can't get out of it by arguing later that you got a raw deal and gave up a lot more than you received. So even a peppercorn is sufficient.
I'm not sure that anyone ever actually gave a peppercorn by way of entering into a contract. I suspect it was actually just a figure of speech some judge or legal scholar came up with to express the idea that courts will not inquire into the value of the consideration.
Ultimately, from the perspective of contract formation, what matters most is that both parties clearly express their intention to be bound by a contract. The function of consideration is symbolic, since whatever it is (even a peppercorn), if the parties recite consideration they are clearly acknowledging their intent to be bound.
In the very early days when the whole idea of a contract was still new, there were other symbolic ways of indicating the parties' intent to be bound, including wax seals and witnesses and such. And if the contract was for the sale of land, it could only become effective if the parties were standing on the land itself and perhaps engaging in a symbolic act such as exchanging roses at midnight (or something like that . . . it's been a long time since I studied this).
|