This is correct. But watch out for nominal consi-deration, which may not hold up under the "bargain" of the exchange.
Right. I almost ended my post with a caveat regarding reciprocal inducement, but I figured that would open up a whole other can of worms.
Reciprocal Inducement is probably the phrase that causes the least confusion. At the end of the day, what is consideration really? A promise for a promise, a thing for a thing, performance for performance, or any combination of the three. It doesn't necessarily have to be a detriment.
The most confusing thing about consideration IMO is that the courts have ruled that they have no right to criticize what one deems fair consideration, yet there is the nominal consideration bit. At the end of the day, "inducement" brings clarity.
"For what reason will I give you this thing"
"Because I will perform this, or serve that, or give you this."
I have to get something in return, and it can't be something you are already legally obligated to give me, and although it doesn't have to be of substantial value compared what I am giving, it can't be merely symbolic in nature. In other words, the court has to see where it has some meaning respective to the parties. A family air-loom, a promise to name a kid, promise to set up a memorial fund in donor's name, promise to forebear a legal right; where the dollar value is unclear, it has to be prevalent that intangible value exists.