can someone help me in this one ?

Peter Griffin likes to jog late at night drunk and naked (along with his pet zebra, Spot) through Carter Pewterschmidt's pumpkin patch, to Carter's continued annoyance. During one unfortunate jogging incident, Peter inadvertently destroyed Carter's prize pumpkin, "Meg." To settle the animosity between the two, Peter promises to pay Carter $473,280.51 next Thursday in exchange for Carter's not suing Peter for property damage. Later that week, Peter actually wrote the check but then changed his mind and refused to pay Carter the money. In fact, Peter ripped up the check and flung the shredded pieces into Carter's face. Carter subsequently sues Peter for the money, and Peter responds that both parties have not given legally valid consideration to support any contract. Who prevails in this lawsuit? Be sure to explain the reasons for your