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

Mason 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 much preferred to cheat Mason out of the contract price it had agreed to pay.That possibility existed because Reece knew that Mason's financial situation was very weak.In fact, Mason 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, Mason accepted that offer and promised that it would not demand payment of the additional $50 000.Reece paid $25 000 to Mason.However, Mason has now sued Reece for $50 000.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Reece will win the lawsuit because all of Mason's work has become past consideration.
B) Mason will win the lawsuit only if he provides some new benefit to Reece.
C) Reece will win the lawsuit because the contract ceased to exist once Mason agreed to receive $25 000 in full satisfaction of the contractual debt.
D) Reece cannot rely on the principle of promissory estoppel because his behaviour was inequitable.
E) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable because Mason's representation concerned a past fact (the value of the work that it performed for Reece) .