Although the courts seldom consider the adequacy of consideration, they may refuse to enforce an agreement which purports to exchange something of significant value for something of nominal value (sometimes called "a peppercorn"). If the courts don’t care about the adequacy of consideration, then how can they refuse to enforce an agreement due to insufficient consideration?

True

Explanation:

Remember, Consideration is that thing that is legally agreed and given such as money, property in exchange for something.

What usually should come first in any contract is sufficient consideration; presence of value to be given.

Therefore, a Court can refuse to enforce an agreement due to insufficient consideration because it is the primary thing that should come first in any contract.

For example, a father gives his adult son $5 on Monday as a present and the son is impressed he says he’ll give his father $10 the following day, there is no contract.  In this scenario the son does not have to give his father $10 on Tuesday, because they (son and father) did not agree to give $5 in exchange for $10. A court would term this case as having insufficient consideration.

business modeling is correct