On January 15, in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, and Ohner agreed to pay the specified price of $5,000 to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $5,000 loan from the First National Bank before January 31."For this question only, assume that Ohner obtained the loan, that Artisan completed the remodeling on May 1, and that on May 3, at Artisan's request, Ohner paid the $5,000 to Artisan. If Neese learns of Ohner's payment to Artisan on May 5, at the same time she learns of the written Artisan-Ohner contract, will she succeed in action against Ohner for $5,000?
Yes, because she is an intended beneficiary of the written Artisan-Ohner contract.  Yes, because the written Artisan-Ohner contract operated as an assignment to Neese, and Artisan thereby lost whatever rights he may have had to the $5,000.  No, because Neese had not furnished any consideration to support Ohner's promise to pay $5,000 to her.  No, because on May 3, Artisan and Ohner effectively modified their written contract, thereby depriving Neese of whatever right she may have had under that contract.
Question: On January 15, in a signed writing, Artisan agreed to remodel Ohner's building according to certain specifications, and Ohner agreed to pay the specified price of $5,000 to Artisan's niece, Roberta Neese, as a birthday present. Neese did not learn of the agreement until her birthday on May 5. Before they signed the writing, Artisan and Ohner had orally agreed that their "written agreement will be null and void unless Ohner is able to obtain a $5,000 loan from the First National Bank before January 31."For this question only, assume that Ohner obtained the loan, that Artisan completed the remodeling on May 1, and that on May 3, at Artisan's request, Ohner paid the $5,000 to Artisan. If Neese learns of Ohner's payment to Artisan on May 5, at the same time she learns of the written Artisan-Ohner contract, will she succeed in action against Ohner for $5,000?
A. Yes, because she is an intended beneficiary of the written Artisan-Ohner contract. 
B. Yes, because the written Artisan-Ohner contract operated as an assignment to Neese, and Artisan thereby lost whatever rights he may have had to the $5,000. 
C. No, because Neese had not furnished any consideration to support Ohner's promise to pay $5,000 to her. 
D. No, because on May 3, Artisan and Ohner effectively modified their written contract, thereby depriving Neese of whatever right she may have had under that contract.
Answer: