A trial judge in Nevada is wondering whether to enforce a surrogate motherhood contract. Penelope Barr, of Reno, Nevada, has contracted with Reuben and Tina Goldberg to bear the in vitro fertilized egg of Mrs. Goldberg. After carrying the child for nine months, Penelope gives birth, but she is reluctant to give up the child, even though she was paid $20,000 at the start of the contract and will earn an additional $20,000 on handing over the baby to the Goldbergs. (Barr was an especially good candidate for surrogate motherhood: she had borne two perfect children and at age 28 drinks no wine, does not smoke or use drugs of any kind, practices yoga, and maintains a largely vegetarian diet with just enough meat to meet the needs of the fetus within.)

The Goldbergs have asked the judge for an order compelling Penelope to give up the baby, who was five days old when the lawsuit was filed. The baby is now a month old as the judge looks in vain for guidance from any Nevada statute, federal statute, or any prior case in Nevada that addressed the issue of surrogate motherhood. He does find several well-reasoned cases, one from New Jersey, one from Michigan, and one from Oregon.

Are any of these "precedent" that he must follow?
May he adopt the reasoning of any of these courts, if he should find that reasoning persuasive?

Here in the context, Penelope and Goldberg signed a contract individually for entering in to a surrogacy contract where Penelope Barr will be the surrogate mother for Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg. Under this contract, Penelope had taken $ 20,000 at the staring and will be paid another $ 20,000 after she delivers the baby and hands it over to the Goldberg family.

But after giving birth, Penelope did not wished to hand over the baby to Goldberg family as per the contract signed.

Penelope breached the contract which is illegal.

A trial judge of Nevada is finding it difficult to come to a conclusion and enforce the contract of surrogate motherhood. As surrogacy is legal in Nevada, and according to the contract signed between the two parties, Penelope should give the child to Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg.

In this case, none of the "precedents" must be followed. But the judge can adopt the valuable reasoning of these states court only if the judge finds the reasoning persuasive.