Rachel is a poor college student, struggling to work part-time and go to college full-time. In December 2015,Rachel's uncle Roger (feelingsorry for Rachel) sends her a letter in which he promises to pay Rachel $300 per month for the next year (2016), so that Rachel can finish up her Associates Degree. Rachel then quits her job to focus on her studies. Roger makes two monthly payments, but then stops making payments, with no explanation at all. Rachel writes Roger, asking for him to explain, but she never hears back from him. If Rachel takes this to court to try to get the remaining $3,000, what is the likely result?

a. Roger should win, as he did not ask Rachel to quit her job, and they did not have a contract.

b. Roger should win, as family members cannot sue each other for breach of an agreement like this.

c. Rachel should win, as a contract was formed when Roger promised to pay her the $300 per month support for a year.

d. Rachel should win. Even though there was no contract here, under thedoctrine of "promissory estoppel" Rachel has quit her job in reliance upon Roger's promise, so Roger will be "estopped" from defendinghimself on the basis of no actual contract.