Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 2013. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2028. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 2013, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 2014, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 2014, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven. On January 15, 2015, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven, wrote a letter thanking his father - and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter." In June 2016, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 2017, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 2018, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank. The bank sued Connie's for $15,000. Steven intervened claiming that the bank had no right to any sum under the lease agreement. Who prevails?
 a) The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000, because consideration was given for the assignment.
b) Steven, because he was named beneficiary before Fetterman made the assignment, and the beneficiary, being first in time, prevails over the assignee.
c) The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000 because Fetterman reserved power to change the beneficiary and to assign the agreement.
d) Steven, because he is a donee beneficiary and the promisee cannot modify or rescind any part of a donee, beneficiary's right

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below Answer I The correct answer is c The ba... View the full answer