It is a general principle of equity that mere inadequacy of consideration alone and without other facts and circumstances present will not warrant the court in refusing specific performance; an examination of the cases, however, reveal that this principle is rarely applied, unless the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience of court.44 In Michigan the rule is that, mere inadequacy of consideration alone not accompanied by any other elements of bad faith, is not sufficient ground for refusing to specifically enforce a contract,45

"Hamburg, Michigan, June 6 (there is a six and seven over it), 1917.

"Received of Ed. Gardner and Delia Gardner One Hundred Dollars ($100) on purchase price of house and lot in Hamburg village. Balance of Eighteen Hundred dollars ($1,800) to be paid and deed given in five days. A. H. Pearson."

Under this contract the defendants entered into possession. Said the court in its opinion, "It is conceded by counsel for plaintiff that the written evidence of the contract is insufficient under the statute of frauds. The only question involved is whether the defendants by their acts in making partial payment, taking possession, reaping the fruits of the garden and changing the character of the premises have done sufficient to take the case out of the statute and to equitably entitle plaintiff to the decree for specific performance which was awarded by the court below. Partial payment of the purchase price alone is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute. Possession alone is insufficient, but where there is partial payment and possession accompanied by acts of ownership of the vendee changing the character of the freehold, and lessening its value, a court of equity may award a decree for specific performance." Cole v. Cole Realty Co., 169 Mich. 347.

"It is true that in the case first cited the action was brought by the vendee rather than the vendor, but it is well settled that specific performance is granted in favor of the vendor of land as freely as in favor of the vendee, though the relief actually obtained by him is the recovery of money, the purchase price." The rule is stated in 36 Cyc. P. 686, as follows:

"The vendor or lessor may have specific performance of a contract which has been performed. This is in part because the delivery of possession by him to the vendor involves a change of condition on his part as well as on the part of the vendee, and point to a contract concerning the land; chiefly because, in cases where the remedy is available to the vendee it should, on the ground of mutuality, be available to the vendor likewise." Arthur v. Cheyboygan, 156 Mich. 152; Leveredge v. Shurtz, 111 Mich. 618.

44. Pomeroy on Equity, 2nd Ed., Sec. 2212 and cases cited.

45. Van Norsdal v. Smith, 141 unless the inadequacy of the consideration is such as to shock the conscience of the court.

Where the inadequacy of consideration, however, is for a substantial amount, the courts give much weight to this fact and is of itself indicative of improvidence, overreaching or sharp practice and it requires but slight evidence of the presence of these latter factors to move the court to deny the relief.46