John James and his adult son Mark came to an agreement whereby John agreed to financially support Mark if Mark in turn agreed to study law and become a lawyer. Mark began his studies and John financially supported him. The agreement between them was subsequently adjusted and John agreed to provide an allowance, as well as a condominium in which Mark could live while completing his studies. After a while father and son got into regular arguments and disagreements as to the occupancy of the condominium and the son's inability to successfully complete his studies as agreed. John (the father) refused to pay the allowance and as well sought possession of the condominium. However, the son argued that he was legally entitled to stay because there was a binding contract between them, as he (Mark) had provided consideration by agreeing to study law for his father agreeing to financially support him during his studies. Should this matter go before the courts what would be the likely decision? Explain the reason for your decision, providing support with legal principles and any supporting case(s)