Peter had a severe gambling problem. Every night, he stayed awake to the early hours of the morning picking games and spreads and betting online or calling his bookie. Finally, Peter's wife, Renee, had enough of Peter's gambling. Renee entered into a written contract with Hyacinth, a gambling addiction therapist, who agreed to treat Peter twice a week for six months. The contract is signed in writing $($by the contract parties, Renee and Hyacinth; and, of course, also by the patient, Peter$).$ Peter then begins his counseling. However, after two months, Renee sees no improvement in Peter's behavior. After all, her debit cards just got declined at the store, and when she confronted Peter, he simply stated, "I lost $$1,000$ on the Miami Marlins last night." Renee decides she is going toflreach the contract, that is$,$ to stop paying Hyacinth. What would a court most likely find, if Hyacinth sues Renee to enforce the contract and make Renee pay for the breach?

Common law governs; a judge would find in favor of Hyacinth, making Renee liable to pay under the terms of the contract.

UCC Article $2$ governs; Renee will pay a remedy of lost profits to Hyacinth, because the sessions were not completed, and the original contract did not specify the length of Peter's recovery.

UCC Article $2$ governs; Renee will not have to pay a remedy or lost profits to Hyacinth, because the treatment did not work.

This type of case would be heard in a court of equity, and both parties must tender specific performance.

Hyacinth had no enforceable rights with Renee because Hyacinth had furnished no consideration to Renee $($the therapy sessions were simply between Hyacinth and Peter$).$