Nicholas Timko served on the board of trustees of a school. Following Timko's recommendation, the school purchased a building for a substantial sum of money. To induce the trustees to vote for the purchase, Timko promised to help with the purchase and to pay at the end of five years the purchase price less the down payment. At the end of four years, Nicholas Timko died. The school sued his estate, which defended on the ground that there was no consideration for the promise. Timko was promised or given nothing in return, and the purchase of the building was of no direct benefit to him (which would have made the promise enforceable as a unilateral contract).The school's claim was initially denied. They then appealed to a higher court asserting that Mr. Timko's promise to pay the unpaid balance of the cost of the building constituted a valid enforceable claim against his estate under the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Here is the question:Do you think that the appeal court upheld the original decision? Or do you think that they held the Timko Estate liable? In your response, explain how you arrived at your answer by referencing the concept of 'consideration' and the doctrine of 'Promissory Estoppel'.