Testator, whose nephew Bypast was his only heir, died leaving a will that gave his entire estate to charity. Bypast, knowing full well that Testator was of sound mind all of his life, and having no evidence to the contrary, nevertheless filed a suit contesting Testator's will on the ground that Testator was incompetent when the will was signed. Craven, Testator's executor, offered Bypast $5,000 to settle the suit, and Bypast agreed. If Craven then repudiates the agreement and the foregoing facts are proved or admitted in Bypast's suit against Craven for breach of contract, is Bypast entitled to recover under the prevailing view?
Yes, because the Bypast-Craven agreement was a bargained-for exchange.  Yes, because the law encourages the settlement of disputed claims.  No, because Bypast did not bring the will contest in good faith.  No, because an agreement to oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide a will contest is contrary to public policy
Question: Testator, whose nephew Bypast was his only heir, died leaving a will that gave his entire estate to charity. Bypast, knowing full well that Testator was of sound mind all of his life, and having no evidence to the contrary, nevertheless filed a suit contesting Testator's will on the ground that Testator was incompetent when the will was signed. Craven, Testator's executor, offered Bypast $5,000 to settle the suit, and Bypast agreed. If Craven then repudiates the agreement and the foregoing facts are proved or admitted in Bypast's suit against Craven for breach of contract, is Bypast entitled to recover under the prevailing view?
A. Yes, because the Bypast-Craven agreement was a bargained-for exchange. 
B. Yes, because the law encourages the settlement of disputed claims. 
C. No, because Bypast did not bring the will contest in good faith. 
D. No, because an agreement to oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide a will contest is contrary to public policy
Answer: