Mason renovated Reece's shop in exchange for the promise of $$75000.$ Reece had enough money to pay the entire bill, but simply did not want to do so$.$ Reece much preferred to cheat Mason out of the contract price it had agreed to pay. That possibility existed because Reece knew that Mason's financial situation was very weak. In fact, Mason it might be forced into bankruptcy if it did not receive at least $$25000$ for its work. Reece therefore offered to pay $$25000$ in full satisfaction of the outstanding debt. Because of the circumstances, Mason accepted that offer and promised that it would not demand payment of the additional $$50000.$ Reece paid $$25000$ to Mason. However, Mason has now sued Reece for $$50000.$ Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Question $16$Select one:

A$.$

Mason will win the lawsuit only if he provides some new benefit to Reece.

B$.$

Reece will win the lawsuit because all of Mason's work has become past consideration.

C$.$

Reece cannot rely on the principle of promissory estoppel because his behaviour was inequitable.

D$.$

Reece will win the lawsuit because the contract ceased to exist once Mason agreed to receive in full satisfaction of the contractual debt.

E$.$

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable because Mason's representation concerned a past fact $($the value of the work that it performed for Reece$).$