Rollem, an automobile retailer, had an adult daughter, Betsy, who needed a car in her employment but had only $3,000 with which to buy one. Rollem wrote to her, "Give me your $3,000 and I'll give you the car on our lot that we have been using as a demonstrator." Betsy thanked her father and paid him the $3,000. As both Rollem and Betsy knew, the demonstrator was reasonably worth $10,000. After Betsy had paid the $3,000, but before the car had been delivered to her, one of Rollem's sales staff sold and delivered the same car to a customer for $10,000. Neither the salesperson nor the customer was aware of the transaction between Rollem and Betsy. Does Betsy, after rejecting a tendered return of the $3,000 by Rollem, have an action against him for breach of contract? 
Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by bargained-for consideration.  Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by the moral obligation a father owes his child as to the necessities of modern life.  No, because the payment of $3,000 was inadequate consideration to support Rollem's promise.  No, because the salesperson's delivery of the car to the customer made it impossible for Rollem to perform. 
Question: Rollem, an automobile retailer, had an adult daughter, Betsy, who needed a car in her employment but had only $3,000 with which to buy one. Rollem wrote to her, "Give me your $3,000 and I'll give you the car on our lot that we have been using as a demonstrator." Betsy thanked her father and paid him the $3,000. As both Rollem and Betsy knew, the demonstrator was reasonably worth $10,000. After Betsy had paid the $3,000, but before the car had been delivered to her, one of Rollem's sales staff sold and delivered the same car to a customer for $10,000. Neither the salesperson nor the customer was aware of the transaction between Rollem and Betsy. Does Betsy, after rejecting a tendered return of the $3,000 by Rollem, have an action against him for breach of contract? 
A. Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by bargained-for consideration. 
B. Yes, because Rollem's promise was supported by the moral obligation a father owes his child as to the necessities of modern life. 
C. No, because the payment of $3,000 was inadequate consideration to support Rollem's promise. 
D. No, because the salesperson's delivery of the car to the customer made it impossible for Rollem to perform. 
Answer: