Surfin' Safari Inc (SSI) is a CA company that specializes in water adventures, tours and lessons. Recently SSI hired Dharma as one of its surf instructors. Dharma is responsible for teaching students about surf safety and taking them out on the water to ride the wake. When the parties originally negotiated, Dharma had agreed with SSI to a salary of $100/day, which she was paid. Two months later Dharma realizes that surf instructors routinely make $250/day. Dharma demands that she be paid for the last two months at a rate of $250/day. SSI refuses. Dharma sues SSI in CA Superior Court for breach of contract. The best argument either party can make is:

A) Dharma should argue that the is entitled to new consideration for her work or the equivalent goods, so SSI should offer her a surfboard at below-market value to compensate her

B) Dharma should argue that she was underpaid by the market relative to her peers, which SSI knew about. Because SSI had unfair bargaining power, Dharma wins because SSI breached its contract under "promissory estoppel" theory.

C) SSI should argue that it never accepted the new daily rate offered by Dharma, and even if they did, it would act as a modification to their existing deal and would need to be supported by new consideration under the common law since this is a contract for services.

D) SSI should argue that Dharma's new offer is a preexisting duty, which is an exception to the consideration requirement, as there is nothing guaranteeing Dharma will work for SSI in the future. Dharma's rate is still enforceable