Alice entered into a contract with Paul by the terms of which Paul was to paint Alice's office for $1,000 and was required to do all of the work over the following weekend so as to avoid disruption of Alice's business. For this question only, assume the following facts. If Paul had started to paint on the following Saturday morning, he could have finished before Sunday evening. However, he stayed home that Saturday morning to watch the final game of the World Series on TV, and did not start to paint until Saturday afternoon. By late Saturday afternoon, Paul realized that he had underestimated the time it would take to finish the job if he continued to work alone. Paul phoned Alice at her home and accurately informed her that it was impossible to finish the work over the weekend unless he hired a helper. He also stated that to do so would require an additional charge of $200 for the work. Alice told Paul that she apparently had no choice but to pay "whatever it takes" to get the work done as scheduled. Paul hired Ted to help finish the painting and paid Ted $200. Alice has offered to pay Paul $1,000. Paul is demanding $1,200. How much is Paul likely to recover? 
$1,000 only, because Alice received no consideration for her promise to pay the additional sum.  $1,000 only, because Alice's promise to pay "whatever it takes" is too uncertain to be enforceable.  $1,200, in order to prevent Alice's unjust enrichment.  $1,200, because the impossibility of Paul's completing the work alone discharged the original contract and a new contract was formed. 