An article written by Claudia Dreifus and published in Glamour magazine discussed therapists who sexually exploit their patients. Jill Ruzicka had told Dreifus that she (Ruzicka) was sexually abused as a child by her father and later by her therapist. Dreifus had promised to withhold Ruzicka's identity from the article, and the published article identified Ruzicka by a fictitious name ("Lundquist"). In the article, Dreifus stated that "Lundquist" was an attorney who had served on the Minnesota Task Force against Sexual Abuse. Ruzicka claimed that this detail revealed her true identity because she was, in fact, the only woman on that task force. Ruzicka asserted that she had relied to her detriment on Dreifus's promise and sued Dreifus to recover damages under, among other theories, a theory of promissory estoppel. Would the promise Dreifus made to keep Ruzicka's identity confidential be consideration? Will the court find that the elements for promissory estoppel have been met? In whose favor should the court rule? Explain your answer. Would the decision be the same if there had been at least one other woman, in addition to Ruzicka, on the Minnesota Task Force against Sexual Abuse? Why or why not? What facts can you come up with that would be material enough to change what you felt the court's decision would be in this case