You have offered to buy ten acers up in the foothills east of Fresno. The purchase price is $2,500,000, and it is your intent to build a subdivision of approximately 40 single family residences on the property. The seller accepted and signed the agreement. Currently the county has zoned the property for only one acer lots, and you must obtain permission from the county to subdivide it into one quarter acer lots. Therefore, in the purchase agreement you inserted a contingency (i.e., an event that must take place otherwise the deal is off) that the county must approve the smaller lot size. Further, in connection with this contingency, seller insisted on a provision that you "will act in good faith to do everything in your power to expedite obtaining the county's permission for one quarter lot size." Shortly after the agreement was signed, seller received a second offer to purchase the property for $3,000,000, and she is now attempting to back out of the deal. Her attorney is arguing that the agreement lacks consideration because it contains the language that you "will act in in good faith to do everything etc . . ." Specifically, he claims that this language does not require you do nothing and therefore it promises nothing. Based on the above, do the following: 1. Brief Bleecher v. Conte case (a copy of the case is located on Canvas); and 2. Answer the following question using the IRAC format (in your rule section cite language from the Bleecher case): Is the language in the purchase agreement, "buyer will act in good faith to do everything in their power to expedite obtaining the county's permission for the smaller lot size", sufficient to create consideration?