Rob's daughter is getting married at a wedding venue that requires Rob to hire a catering company that will provide food and serve alcohol by licensed and trained bartenders, as required by a local ordinance, with the alcohol being provided by Rob. Rob enters into a contract with Risky Business, Inc. to provide food and licensed bartenders to serve alcohol that has been purchased by Rob for his daughter's wedding reception for a contract price of $20,000. One day before the wedding is scheduled to start, the owner of Risky Business, Inc. emails Rob telling him that unless he signs an agreement stating that "you [Rob] and you alone are providing alcohol to the wedding party and that you accept any and all liability for you and your guests," the licensed bartenders will not be able to serve alcohol at the wedding. When Rob says he will not sign the agreement, the owner of Risky Business, Inc. offers him the option of paying an additional $1,000 for Risky Business' licensed bartenders to obtain insurance. Because it is too late to obtain the services of another caterer that provides licensed bartenders, and not wanting to disappoint his daughter and wedding guests, Rob promises to pay the additional $1,000. At the conclusion of the wedding reception, the owner of Risky Business approaches Rob for payment. Rob writes him a check for the original contract price of $20,000, but refuses to pay him the additional $1,000.

Is Rob's promise to pay the additional $1,000 enforceable?

Question 4 options:

A)

No, in a jurisdiction which follows the pre-existing duty rule as interpreted by Alaska Packers since no new consideration has been given for Rob's promise.

B)

No, in a jurisdiction which follows the Restatement and UCC approach that contracts can't be modified without new consideration.

C)

Yes, in a jurisdiction which follows the Restatement and UCC approach since Risky Business' modification was fair and equitable in view of the unforeseen circumstance that Rob would not be willing to acquire insurance for the bartenders.

D)

Yes, in a jurisdiction which follows the pre-existing duty rule as interpreted by Alaska Packers since new consideration was given by Rob in purchasing the insurance for the bartenders.