Spender owed Midas $1,000, plus interest at 8% until paid, on a long-overdue promissory note, collection of which would become barred by the statute of limitations on June 30. On the preceding April 1, Spender and Midas both signed a writing in which Spender promised to pay the note in full on the following December 31, plus interest at 8% until that date, and Midas promised not to sue on the note in the meantime. Midas, having received some advice from his nonlawyer brother-in-law, became concerned about the legal effect of the April 1 agreement. On May 1, acting pro se as permitted by the rules of the local small claims court, he filed suit to collect the note. Assuming that there is no controlling statute, is the April 1 agreement an effective defense for Spender? 
Yes, because Spender's promise to pay interest until December 31 was consideration for Midas's promise not to sue.  Yes, because the law creates a presumption that Spender relied on Midas's promise not to sue.  No, because there was no consideration for Midas's promise not to sue, in that Spender was already obligated to pay $1,000 plus interest at 8% until the payment date.  No, because Spender's April 1 promise is enforceable with or without consideration. 
Question: Spender owed Midas $1,000, plus interest at 8% until paid, on a long-overdue promissory note, collection of which would become barred by the statute of limitations on June 30. On the preceding April 1, Spender and Midas both signed a writing in which Spender promised to pay the note in full on the following December 31, plus interest at 8% until that date, and Midas promised not to sue on the note in the meantime. Midas, having received some advice from his nonlawyer brother-in-law, became concerned about the legal effect of the April 1 agreement. On May 1, acting pro se as permitted by the rules of the local small claims court, he filed suit to collect the note. Assuming that there is no controlling statute, is the April 1 agreement an effective defense for Spender? 
A. Yes, because Spender's promise to pay interest until December 31 was consideration for Midas's promise not to sue. 
B. Yes, because the law creates a presumption that Spender relied on Midas's promise not to sue. 
C. No, because there was no consideration for Midas's promise not to sue, in that Spender was already obligated to pay $1,000 plus interest at 8% until the payment date. 
D. No, because Spender's April 1 promise is enforceable with or without consideration. 
Answer: