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. For this question only, assume that on January 2 of the following year Midas's suit has not come to trial, Spender has not paid the note, Midas has retained a lawyer, and the lawyer, with leave of court, amends the complaint to add a second count to enforce the promise Spender made in the April 1 agreement. Does the new count state a claim upon which relief can be granted? 
Yes, because Spender's failure to pay the note, plus interest, on December 31 makes Midas's breach of promise not to sue before that date no longer material.  Yes, because Spender's April 1 promise is enforceable by reason of his moral obligation to pay the debt.  No, because such relief would undermine the policy of the statute of limitations against enforcement of stale claims.  No, because Spender's April 1 promise was lawfully conditioned upon Midas's forbearing to sue prior to December 31. 
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. For this question only, assume that on January 2 of the following year Midas's suit has not come to trial, Spender has not paid the note, Midas has retained a lawyer, and the lawyer, with leave of court, amends the complaint to add a second count to enforce the promise Spender made in the April 1 agreement. Does the new count state a claim upon which relief can be granted? 
A. Yes, because Spender's failure to pay the note, plus interest, on December 31 makes Midas's breach of promise not to sue before that date no longer material. 
B. Yes, because Spender's April 1 promise is enforceable by reason of his moral obligation to pay the debt. 
C. No, because such relief would undermine the policy of the statute of limitations against enforcement of stale claims. 
D. No, because Spender's April 1 promise was lawfully conditioned upon Midas's forbearing to sue prior to December 31. 
Answer: