Patty is a poor college student struggling to work and keep up with her studies. Fred, her uncle, promises to pay Patty support of $200 per month for the next six months. Although Fred didn't ask her to, she quits her current job in order to devote full time to her studies for the next six months. Fred makes one payment and then stops with no explanation. If Patty sues, what is the likely result?
a. Fred would win, as he did not ask Patty to quit her job.
b. Patty would win, as a contract was formed when Fred promised to pay her the support.
c. Fred would win, as family members cannot sue each other for breach of an oral promise.
d. Patty may win under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

If patty sues, the likely result is:

D. Patty may win under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Explanation:

Here, in the given question it is mentioned that Patty is a student who is poor and he is struggling to work and also keep up with her studies inspite of the difficulties.

Her uncle, Fred, promises patty that he will help him in this situation and help her with an amount of $200 per month for the next six months.

Although her uncle, Fred didn't ask her to but patty by herself quits her job so that she gives her maximum time and attention to her studies for the six months in which her uncle was going to help her.

According to what hr uncle promised he gave her the amount which he promised to but this was done for a month and then without saying anything or giving any reason he stopped giving her the amount he promised to.

So, now in this scenario if patty sues the likely result would be:

d. Patty may win under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

you have to put the parentheses like this:

in fact, you have to perform the operation inside parentheses first, and then proceed in order: