Danny, a successful stockbroker, wants to buy a Bob's Bagel's franchise. He approaches Bob's, and is told, \"We only grant franchises to individuals who can show a net worth of $500,000, and who have spent at least 6 months working in a Bob's to learn our operations.\" Danny has the money but lacks the experience. So, he quits his $700,000 a year job as a stockbroker and goes to work for six months as assistant manager of a Bob's franchise. He works long hours learning every aspect of the business. At the end of 6 months, he again applies for a franchise. Bob's refuses to grant him one. At this point, the market downturn means he can no longer get his stockbroker's job back. If he sues Bob's on grounds of promissory estoppel, Bob's best argument would be: A. There was no promise. B. There was no reliance on the promise. C. There was no detriment suffered by the promisee. D. Bob's was not enriched by Danny's efforts