Bruce, a builder, agreed to renovate a house for Lula for $200,000. The works were meant to be finished by March 2021. Lula was very keen for the work to be completed on time as she had already agreed to sell the house to Popeye, who would move into the house in April 2021. Bruce commenced work and, not long after, realised that due to COVID-19 restrictions he would not be able to complete the building on time. Bruce approached Lula and asked for some additional time. Lula refused. Instead, Lula offered to pay an extra $50,000 if Bruce finished the work by the due date. Bruce accepted and, relying on Lula's offer, decided to hire another builder with the intention of that builder helping him have the job finished on time. The work was completed by the due date. Which of the following statements is CORRECT according to the doctrine of promissory estoppel? Question 19Answer a. The doctrine of promissory estoppel will operate, provided that the promise to pay an extra $50,000 was in writing. b. The promise to pay an extra $50,000 is not enforceable: Bruce can only claim the initially agreed $200,000. c. Lula can rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel as a defence, if Bruce sues her. d. If Bruce succeeds in action in promissory estoppel, Lula will likely need to compensate Bruce for the costs of hiring another builder, only