David Solsten was a prominent businessman who was considering running for political office. His daughter Stacy has studied theater at Harvard and was ready to seek her fortune and fame in movies. When no movie roles were offered to her, she was offered a very well paying contract to star in adult films. Her father was worried her pornographic film career what hurt his political goals and he asked her to reject the offer. Stacy would not listen to him and was eager to have something to add to her acting resume. Mr soltsen Offered his daughter $250,000 to not make any adult film, or any film that involved nudity for a period of 10 years. The offer was conveyed to Stacy in a letter. Stacy wrote back to her father and in her father, she wrote that she was accepting her father's offer and that his offer had motivated her to lead a more moral life. Stacy rejected offers to make adult film and refrained from making any movie involving nudity for 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, she asked her father to pay her the $250,000. He refused to pay, stating that Stacy had given him nothing in return for his promise except a promise to be a good person. He argued that she already had a pre-existing duty to be a good person and offered nothing new. What do you think a court should rule in this case?