D. appears to be irrelevant. She was still in school (i.e. college) at the time of his death.Originally Posted by TombraidersThe sentence is from this Web page:
Mr. Beasley was quite fond of his niece, Sarah. He offered to pay for her college education. When she graduated from high school, he gave her her first tuition check. He continued to send tuition checks for her education for the next two years. She was a junior in college when he died. Sarah's tuition is not mentioned in his will, and the estate refuses to pay her last year's tuition. Her parents are urging Sarah to sue the estate for the tuition money. Will she win?
A. Yes, because it is obvious that he intended to pay for her tuition, and thus, it is promissory estoppel.
B. No, because this is a gift and cannot be construed as consideration for a contract.
C. Yes, because this was a contract between Mr. Beasley and Sarah.
D. No, because Sarah has not held up her side of the bargain by finishing school
For the meaning of answer D there are two different opnions:
1. Sarah has not secured the financial term with Mr. Beasley that it should last till the end of her college, i.e. finishing school. So the agreement can be ended at any time.
2. Sarah has finished her school, paying her money now won't help with her college education.
Which explanation is correct? Or is there any other interpretation?