In June, $1988,$ John Simpson granted to his son, D$.$ Bruce Simpson, the right to purchase various parcels of real property that were held initially by John's revocable trust and later by his wife's $($Mildred Simpson$)$ revocable trust. The $1988$ option agreement provided that Bruce could exercise the option at any time on or before $20$ years from the date of the agreement and contained the following clause: $"[$i$]$n consideration for the mutual promises made in this agreement."

When some of the properties were transferred to Mildred's trust in $1993,$ Bruce executed a waiver of the option only to facilitate the transfer of the properties for estate planning purposes, and Mildred executed a written agreement ratifying and incorporating John's $1988$ option agreement. John died in $2002,$ and Mildred died in $2006.$ The properties were thereafter administered by John's and Mildred's trusts. In April $2008,$ Bruce exercised the option on several of the parcels. Bruce then died in March $2009.$ In April $2009,$ the personal representative of Bruce's estate completed the purchase of the properties.

Chris, who is John's other surviving son, filed a petition challenging the validity of the $1988$ option agreement because of a lack of consideration with the vague clause. Family members testified that the mutual promises were related to John staying in the area, caring for his parents, and running the family fruit farm because Chris had left home and did not want to run the business.

$$If there is a lack of consideration for the option:

Question $25$ options:

a$)$

$$Chris and John would stand to inherit property.

b$)$

$$John would still be able to take the property.

c$)$

$$The property belongs to only Mildred

d$)$

$$The property cannot be transferred.