Short answer. No. Rule 131, Section 3 presumes That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. The party relying on the contract does not have to prove consideration up front; the party attacking it for want of consideration carries the burden of showing there was none.
What the law says
That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract
Rule 131, Section 3 — Disputable presumptions. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Rule 131, Section 3 — Disputable presumptions. Read the full provision →
Who has to prove what
This presumption is really an allocation of burden. Contracts are enforced every day without anyone leading evidence that value was exchanged, and requiring that proof in every case would make routine agreements unworkable. So the law assumes consideration existed and was sufficient. If you hold a signed contract and sue on it, you are not required to begin by proving what you gave. The person resisting it on the ground that nothing was given is the one who must produce evidence of that.
"Sufficient" is not the same as "adequate"
The clause presumes consideration that is sufficient, which is a question of existence rather than of price. Courts are not in the business of second-guessing whether a bargain was a good one, and a party who simply overpaid or undersold has not thereby shown an absence of consideration. Attacking a contract on this ground therefore means showing that nothing at all supported the promise — not that the exchange was unwise or one-sided. That is a much harder case to make, which is precisely the point of the presumption.
It is disputable, and sometimes disputed successfully
Section 3 states that its presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Documents drawn up to record a transfer that never really happened are the standard battleground: a deed reciting a price that was never paid, or an acknowledgment of a loan that was never released. Evidence that the money never moved, that no delivery occurred, or that the parties conducted themselves afterwards as though nothing had been exchanged is what answers the presumption.
Related presumptions in the same section
This clause sits among several that push in the same direction. Section 3 also presumes that private transactions have been fair and regular, that the ordinary course of business has been followed, and — for negotiable instruments specifically — that the instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. Taken together they mean that a person challenging a documented transaction generally starts at a disadvantage, and needs evidence rather than suspicion.