Loomis, the owner and operator of a small business, encourages "wellness" on the part of his employees and supports various physicalfitness programs to that end. Learning that one of his employees, Graceful, was a dedicated jogger, Loomis promised to pay her a special award of $100 if she could and would run one mile in less than six minutes on the following Saturday. Graceful thanked him, and did in fact run a mile in less than six minutes on the day specified. Shortly thereafter, however, Loomis discovered that for more than a year Graceful had been running at least one mile in less than six minutes every day as a part of her personal fitness program. He refused to pay the $100. In an action by Graceful against Loomis for breach of contract, which of the following best summarizes the probable decision of the court? 
Loomis wins, because it is a compelling inference that Loomis's promise did not induce Graceful to run the specified mile.  Loomis wins, because Graceful's running of the specified mile was beneficial, not detrimental, to her in any event.  Graceful wins, because running a mile in less than six minutes is a significantly demanding enterprise.  Graceful wins, because she ran the specified mile as requested, and her motives for doing so are irrelevant. 