In 1995, Helikon Furniture Co. appointed Tom Gaede as an independent sales agent for the sale of its products in parts of Texas. The parties signed a one-year contract that specified, among other things, the commissions that Gaede would receive. Over a year later, although the parties had not signed a new contract, Gaede was still representing Helikon when it was acquired by a third party. Helikon’s new management allowed Gaede to continue to perform for the same commissions and sent him a letter stating that it would make no changes in its sales representatives “for at least the next year.” Three months later, in December 1997, the new managers sent Gaede a letter proposing new terms for a contract. Gaede continued to sell Helikon products until May 1997, when he received a letter effectively reducing the amount of his commissions. Gaede filed a suit in a Texas state court against Helikon, alleging breach of contract. Helikon argued, in part, that there was no contract because there was no consideration. In whose favor should the court rule, and why?