Mark purchases a home using an FHA-loan. This type of loan has three advantages. First, it allows the buyer/mortgagor to use a smaller down payment. Second, it allows the buyer/mortgagor to assign the loan to a subsequent purchaser of the home. Third, it has a very low interest rate. Mark purchased his home in 2001, with a 30 year FHA loan. In 2011, Mark decides to sell his home. At this time (in 2011), interest rates are very high. The new buyer, Ashley, is interested in taking over Mark's FHA loan, especially because the interest rate is low on Mark's FHA loan. Mark performs a credit check on Ashley and everything looks good. Mark contacts the bank and the bank agrees to allow Ashley to take over Mark's loan. The bank, however, wants some additional contractual requirements from Ashley, including a slightly higher interest rate; this interest rate is higher than Mark's interest rate, but still much lower than current market interest rates. Mark is happy because he can sell his house and Ashley can take over his loan. Mark was not involved with the bank's negotiations with Ashley and does not know that the bank required additional terms from Ashley. Ashley is happy because she can buy a house and get a good interest rate. Two years later, the bank contacts Mark to let him know that Ashley is in default on the FHA loan and Mark will have to make the payments, at the higher interest rate, or the bank will sue Mark for breach of contract. Mark says he is not liable.

Based on these facts alone, what is the most likely result?

Is Mark liable?