As a general rule, courts are not in a position to balance the “proportionality” of the consideration, provided that the consideration is determined as “sufficient”, the adequacy being defined as an exercise in legal review, while “adequacy” is subjective fairness or equivalence. For example, consent to the sale of a car for a pfennig may constitute a binding contract (although the transaction is an attempt to avoid taxes, it is treated by the tax authorities as if a market price had been paid).  Parties may do so for tax purposes and attempt to conceal donations in the form of contracts. This is called the peppercorn rule, but in some legal systems, the penny may be an insufficient nominal consideration. An exception to the adequacy rule is money, a debt that must always pay in full for “compliance and satisfaction.”     The process of analyzing two related data sets and, if there are differences between them, finding the cause and bringing the two data sets together. Example: comparison of a current checkbook with a monthly balance of the financial institution`s account that accounts. If the contract contains uncertain or incomplete clauses and all options for resolving its actual importance have failed, it may be possible to separate and invalidate only the relevant clauses if the contract contains a deterrent clause. Examining the separation capacity of a clause is an objective test – if a reasonable person would see the contract succeed without the clauses. As a general rule, non-separable contracts require only the substantial fulfillment of a promise and not the full fulfillment of a promise of payment. However, explicit clauses may be included in a non-deductible contract to expressly require the full performance of an obligation.  Using a fraudulent system, individuals lose money, lose property, damage their creditworthiness and possibly make additional debts. In addition, a creditor may take legal action against a person in order to resolve a fraudulent attempt to repay the debt.
It is also possible that the victim identified a theft by participating in such a fraudulent scheme.