When my brother worked at the Jeep (AMC?) plant in South Bend he said the discount wasn’t worth it. He drove, among other things, a Pacer. 
He also had a Studebaker Golden Hawk (a really fast sleeper}.
An Isetta.
A Powell pickup. (Scroll down one message)
A Checker (not the taxi).
Wierd dude, my brother Charlie. 
No discounts, he bought them all used.
The Stude, I must admit, was kickass.
Brown stuff on the end of one’s nose.:rolleyes:
Is this true, always?
In a general sense, yes. Consideration is the concept that something of value must pass between the parties; that each party needs to give up one thing or commit to do some thing in exchange for another thing or another promise that has some value or benefit to them. Courts will not inquire whether the parties’ own personal systems of valuation make much sense (the old maxim that “a peppercorn will suffice” as consideration), but they will look to see that a bargain, a tit-for-tat, has been struck between the contracting parties.
Of course, even when that fails, some courts will occasionally use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to give a party the value of its expectations in a one-sided agreement, but this is far from universal.
According to Judge Judy it is. Not that she follows that doctrine on her stupid show.