Besides the reason for removal being rather unclear, one should bear in mind that the post already had an upvoted answer with follow-up comments by both another user (interestingly, another moderator, who suggested me to elaborate on the last paragraph of my answer), and the OP himself.
Although the post makes references to video games, consoles, and few other devices (?), it falls short of what one would call "spam".
One can only speculate that perhaps what prompted the flagging and removal was one specific phrase by the OP which --based on user GeorgeWhite's comment/reaction-- appears to touch on racism (?) and slavery. But even in that case, editing to remove that single expression would have been far more commensurate than removing the entire post (that is, including the contract-law answer thereto and clarificatory comments).
Therefore, I think the post at issue should be restored. That would be more consistent with that moderator's pre-election vision to "keep potentially useful questions open, even if they need a little TLC" (whatever TLC means). That post belongs in that category, among other reasons, because the answer clarifies that something labeled as "gift" may actually qualify as compensation or consideration under contract law.