Geppetto secured a contract to carry out carpentry work on a large building renovation project for Saw & Hammer Ltd. The works started on 1 January 2024. According to the contract, time was of the essence and the due date to finish the work was Friday 15 March 2024. In February 2024, Geppetto realised that he will only be able to complete the work on time at a financial loss. In this context, Geppetto approached Saw & Hammer Ltd and demanded an extra $10,000 in order to finish the work by the due date or, otherwise, 'you can wait until August and see how you deal with the penalties for late completion of the renovation'. Saw & Hammer Ltd reluctantly agreed to pay the extra $10,000. Geppetto completed the work as agreed. Saw & Hammer Ltd, however, refused to pay the additional $10,000. Which of the following statements is MOST CORRECT? Question 18Answer a. As in this case there is a suggestion of threat or duress, the promise to pay the additional sum is not enforceable via the 'practical benefit' test. b. As Saw & Hammer Ltd obtained a 'practical benefit' in having the renovations completed on time, the promise to pay the additional $10,000 is enforceable. c. The promise to pay an additional $10,000 is enforceable regardless of whether the promise was in writing. d. The promise to pay an additional $10,000 is enforceable, provided it was in writing