Deecey Renovated Reece's Shop in Exchange for the Promise of $75

Deecey renovated Reece's shop in exchange for the promise of $75 000. Reece had enough money to pay the entire bill, but simply did not want to do so. Reece also knew that Deecey's financial situation was very weak and that it might be forced into bankruptcy if it did not receive at least $25 000 for its work. Reece therefore offered to pay $25 000 in full satisfaction of the outstanding debt. Because of the circumstances, Deecey accepted that offer and promised that it would not demand payment of the additional $50 000. Reece paid $25 000 to Deecey. However, Deecey now claims that it is entitled to the additional $50 000. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Reece cannot rely on the principle of promissory estoppel because its own behaviour was inequitable.
B) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable because Deecey is trying to use a gratuitous promise as a sword, rather than a shield.
C) Deecey will want to rely on the principle of promissory estoppel because Reece's behaviour was inequitable.
D) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable because Reece is trying to use a gratuitous promise as a sword, rather than a shield.
E) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable because Deecey's representation concerned a past fact (the value of the work that it performed for Reece) .