Enzo grinned. “That’s tech law, baby. We do it all the time,” He gave him a cocky grin. “Don’t you work in cyber crimes?”
Seven ignored him. “Your Honor, opposing counsel is conflating consumer protections with magical extortion.”
“You’re not going to object to opposing counsel calling you baby?” Lourdes asked drolly.
Seven scoffed. “He can call me whatever he wants. I’m still gonna win this case.”
There was a chorus of “Oohs” from the gallery.
Lourdes banged her gavel, then narrowed her eyes at the two of them. “I want to hear alternate theories of liability. Assume, for the sake of argument, that your opponent’s position has merit. Now, tell me why it still fails to hold under scrutiny. The real test here isn’t who can recite precedent, it’s who can pivot under pressure and still land the argument. Let’s see who’s thinking like counsel and who’s just playing advocate.”
Seven didn’t miss a beat, almost like he’d been anticipating this. “Even in adoption and surrogacy, courts favor the biological mother, and that’s when the child already exists. But in this case, there was no embryo. No biological connection. That distinction renders this matter even more clear-cut. What Mr. Rumpelstiltskin seeks to enforce is not a custodial agreement, but a claim over a hypothetical, unborn child. This isn’t a question of family law—it’s speculative commerce. He didn’t contract for a child. He attempted to secure a future human being as consideration for services rendered. And that is not only unenforceable, it borders on commodification.”
Enzo leaned back on his hands. “Speculative contracts are enforceable, Counselor. The trading of future interests is a recognized principle—just ask Wall Street. The fact that the child had not yet been conceived does not negate the existence of consideration. The Queen clearly identified the terms of the exchange, accepted the benefit—immense wealth—and then failed to perform. That isn’t ambiguity. That’s breach.”
Seven was shaking his head before Enzo even finished speaking, now looking at him instead of the judge. “Even assuming the Queen entered into the agreement in good faith, the law must provide recourse for a change in conscience when the subject of the contract is a child. Family law recognizes this principle—birth parents retain the right to revoke consent in adoption proceedings, even after preliminary agreements are made because the law prioritizes the child’s welfare and the parents’ autonomy over the sanctity of contract. Mr. Rumpelstiltskin has no biological connection to the child and no legal parental standing. To compel performance under these circumstances would be not only unjust, it would be a gross violation of public policy.”
Enzo gave him a patient look that he knew would drive Seven insane. “Once again, Counsel conflates this with family law. But this isn’t about custody or parentage—it’s speculative commerce. The contract wasn’t for a child born out of love or biology. It was for future consideration—a bargained-for exchange. The moment the Queen accepted the gold, she shifted this from sentiment to transaction.”
“Except, that line of reasoning would effectively permit the commodification of human life. Children are not livestock, Counselor. You cannot pre-sell a person as if they were a corn futures contract. Recognizing that kind of exchange as enforceable sets a dangerous precedent, one that reduces a childto a transactional asset rather than a human being with rights and dignity.”
Enzo shrugged. “Unless the court construes the contract as one for specific performance rather than custody, there is no basis for invalidation. My client did not seek to assert parental rights or claim ownership. He merely sought enforcement of the agreed-upon consideration—something of value promised in exchange for services rendered. Had the Queen pledged land, a title, or even a crown jewel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact that the consideration was a child doesn’t, by itself, invalidate the contract.”
Lourdes raised a brow. “But she didn’t offer a deed, Mr. Conti. She offered up a baby.”
Seven jumped on this. “Even if the court sets aside the moral implications, the evidentiary deficiencies remain. There is no written contract. No witnesses. No formal documentation of terms. By any legal standard, this alleged agreement fails to meet the threshold for admissibility. What we’re left with is a disputed oral exchange between a frightened, vulnerable woman and a magical opportunist. Hardly the foundation for enforceable obligations under contract law.”
Enzo held up a hand, shaking his head. “Except, Your Honor, the Queen publicly acknowledged the existence of the agreement, most notably in the presence of palace staff when she exclaimed, ‘You’ll never take my baby!’ That statement alone could be construed as post-contractual ratification. Combined with her continued acceptance and use of the gold produced by my client’s performance, her conduct supports the existence of a valid agreement and reinforces her intent to be bound by its terms.”
Seven scoffed. “Post-performance behavior? If opposing counsel is referring to the Queen isolating herself in a tower and desperately trying to solve a magical riddle before the birth ofher child, that’s not ratification—that’s sheer panic. She wasn’t affirming the contract. She was trying to escape a deal made under fear and duress.”
Enzo moved closer. “Panic notwithstanding, the Queen made no effort to repudiate the agreement. She didn’t return the gold, seek to renegotiate, or raise any formal objection until her performance was due. In contract law, silence—particularly in the face of ongoing performance—can be construed as acceptance. Her inaction speaks volumes and further reinforces the validity of the agreement.”
Seven shook his head. “Unless, of course, she was acting under duress—which, by all indications, she was. There was no genuine, voluntary consent. Her so-called agreement was made in a moment of desperation, driven purely by survival instinct. And under well-established contract principles, consent obtained through coercion is not consent at all.”
“Duress must be proven, Counselor, not merely inferred,” Enzo countered. “No court can nullify a contract based solely on subjective emotional distress. If we started voiding every agreement made under pressure, half my hedge fund clients would be living in tent cities. Pressure isn’t coercion. It’s business.”
“Maybe most of your hedge fund clients should be,” Seven shot back.
Lourdes cleared her throat, grabbing their attention. “Rein it in boys before someone starts quoting Marx. Mr. Symanski, wrap it up.”
“Yes, Your Honor. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the contract was valid at its inception, its subject—a child not yet conceived—renders it legally unenforceable. Courts do not enforce agreements that violate public policy, especially those that bypass fundamental rights or due process. This was not a petition for guardianship. Mr. Rumpelstiltskin soughtexclusive possession of the child with no judicial oversight, no maternal consent, and no legal safeguards. That is not breach. That is abduction masquerading as contract enforcement.”
Lourdes nodded. “Mr. Conti?”
“Even if the specific clause regarding the child is deemed unenforceable, the fact remains: the Queen materially benefited from the agreement. And under basic principles of equity and contract law, a party who accepts the benefit of a bargain cannot simply walk away without consequence. At the very least, she owes restitution for the services rendered. The gold didn’t vanish the moment her conscience reappeared.”
“Then sue for damages, not a baby,” Seven retorted.
“Okay, okay,” Lourdes said, glancing between them. “In a contract where the subject is a child, I’m compelled to note that both the law—and my conscience—favor Mr. Symanski’s position. In matters involving adoption or surrogacy, when a mother enters into an agreement in good faith but later revokes consent after the child is born, courts are exceptionally reluctant to enforce restitution. The law prioritizes the rights of the parent and the welfare of the child over the finality of a bargain. But, as always, it’s not my verdict to render. That honor belongs to the jury.”
She looked out at the crowd. All those who side with Mr. Conti?” A respectable number of hands went up. “And all those who side with Mr. Symanski?”
Far more hands flew into the air.
“Looks like you won your first case, Mr. Symanski. Very impressive.”
Enzo wanted to bottle the grin that split Seven’s face. “Congratulations, Counselor,” he murmured. To Lourdes, he said, “May I borrow him for a moment? There’s a…thing we need to discuss. It won’t take long.”
