Gerry and Harlan both have lawn-care businesses. For a number of years, they agreed to take care of each other's clients for a two-week period while the other took a family vacation. Seven years ago, while Harlan was away, Gerry fully performed his part of the agreement. That same summer, just as Gerry was about to leave for his vacation, Harlan fell off his riding lawn mower and broke his leg. Harlan was no longer able to perform under their arrangement and, although Gerry was upset to miss his vacation, he agreed to discharge their contract and do his own maintenance. Harlan was uncomfortable about being indebted to Gerry, so he proposed a number of solutions to clear the debt:

1. He offered to have his young son, Jeb, complete the work. Gerry, however, was not confident that the quality of Jeb's work would meet his high standards. Gerry thanked Harlan for his offer, but told him that he would do the work himself.

2. Harlan offered to pay Gerry market value for his earlier work, but Gerry told him not to give it another thought.

3. Harlan also tried to give Gerry three bags of top-ofthe line fertilizer, but it was not the brand Gerry liked to use, so he politely declined the offer.

Harlan decided he had done what he could to fulfill his obligations and gave up trying. For many years, Gerry and Harlan maintained the same arrangement. This past summer, the day before leaving for his vacation, Gerry told Harlan that he intended to take an extended four-week holiday but expected that Harlan would not charge anything more under their agreement on account of the incident that had happened seven years earlier. Harlan simply refused to do Gerry's lawn maintenance for the two additional weeks on such short notice. Gerry is furious at Harlan's refusal and insists that he will sue Harlan if Harlan does not perform. Is Harlan legally obligated to perform under the seven-year-old agreement? Would Gerry succeed in court? Give reasons for your answer.