Melnick built a house for Gintzler, but the foundation was defective. Gintzler agreed to accpet the foundation if Melnick guranteed to make future repairs caused by the defects. Melnick agreed but later refused to make any repairs. Melnick argued that his promise to make future reparis was unsupported by consideration. Who will win the suti? Is either party acting unethically? Which one, and why?