Father's promise to son - contract?

"Peter wanted his son Paul to be a lawyer. Peter offered Paul new car if his senior year grades qualified him for entrance to law school. Paul obtained the required grades. Immediately, Peter gave Paul a secondhand motor scooter.

Ten months later Peter and Paul had an argument. Paul left the home and then claimed the new car from Peter.

Peter said his offer was a joke. Paul said he considered it serious and wanted the car."

my apologies for posting a homework question in this section but I know I'll get a useful answer and I really don't know where I'm going with it:

If Peter said it was a joke, does that mean he had no intention to be bound so there is no contract?
Is Paul getting the required grades sufficient consideration?
Does the space of ten months mean too much time has lapsed for the claim?
Does the gift of the scooter have any relevance?

etc, I'm stuck!

Statute of Frauds would require any contract where the value is more than 500 dollars to be in writing. But I doubt that the court would see that the grades were sufficient consideration for a contract. I doubt any court would interpret a contract formation.

The father's offer was an oral contract.
However, therein lies the problem. Nothing was spelled out, no witnesses, no proof. Simply the father's misplaced sense of honor.
It's very hard to find a man of honor with a "hand-shake agreement" any more.
Too bad the father made such an error.
Joke? It's not funny.

A promise of a gift is seldom considered a contract as no consideration is given. In this case performance can be consideration. If Paul's grades were a result of him putting in extra effort to get the car than this could be performance. Also the argument can be made that Paul reasonably relied on his fathers promise to his detriment and therefore Peter should be estopped from arguing there was not a contract. However, getting good grades is seldom to ones detriment.
This doesn鈥檛 fall under the statute of frauds because the statute of frauds covers the sale of goods over $500, not any contract over $500. The only way this could fall under the statute of frauds is if the contract could not be performed within one year. In this case it appears that it does.