On May 1, a tourist went on a rock-climbing trip with a rock climbing guide. While on their climb, an anchor, used to attach a climber to the climbing surface, was placed on the cliff face by the guide. However, the anchor broke loose, and the guide fell, nearly taking the tourist with him. Luckily, the tourist caught a stone outcropping, saving both himself and the guide. The guide, fearing that the anchor had failed because he had placed it negligently, entered into a written contract with the tourist providing that the guide promised to pay the tourist $200,000 in consideration for saving the guide's life, and for the tourist's promise to not bring a negligence action against the guide for his injuries related to the fall. The contract provided that the guide would pay the money by August 1. Honestly believing he had a valid negligence claim against the guide, but unwilling to pay the legal costs of bringing such an action, the tourist signed the contract. A month later, an investigation revealed that the guide had not attached the anchor negligently, and that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect of the anchor. This discovery made it clear that in the applicable jurisdiction, the guide could not have been found liable to the tourist for negligence. On August 1, the tourist demanded payment under the written contract, but the guide refused to pay. The tourist sued the guide to recover $200,000 under the contract.
Will the tourist succeed in his action?
A. No, because past acts are typically insufficient consideration.
B. No, because the tourist had no valid cause of action against the guide.
C. Yes, because the contract was in writing and signed by the guide.
D. Yes, because the tourist believed he had a valid negligence claim against the guide.