Drugs, Inc. began a promotion for Sick-Me-Not, a medicine that is supposed to prevent users from catching any illness. Under the promotion, which was described in an ad that ran for three consecutive weeks on page 30 of Time Magazine, Drugs, Inc. told consumers it would refund the purchase price of Sick-Me-Not if purchasers used the medicine correctly for six months and still got sick. Piper Pepper purchased Sick-Me-Not and used it for six months, but still came down with bronchitis. She did not notify Drugs, Inc. that she was taking the medicine. Four months after Piper began using Sick-Me-Not, i.e., two months before the expiration of the six month period set forth in the ad, Drugs ran an ad for three consecutive weeks on page 30 in Time retracting the offer and saying it would no longer pay for anyone who became ill after using the product during the six month period she was using the product. Piper thereafter properly filled out the paperwork described in the first series of ads to receive her refund. However, Drugs, Inc. refuses to pay the refund amount.
If Piper sues Drugs, Inc. for breach of contract, what is the most likely result?
(A) Drugs, Inc. must pay Piper, unless Piper saw the ad retracting the offer before she completed performance.
(B) Drugs, Inc. must pay Piper because she has begun performance and its attempted revocation was not effective against Piper.
(C) Drugs, Inc. has no duty to pay Piper because Piper had a duty to notify Drugs, Inc. she was participating in the promotion within a reasonable time after she started, and she did not.
(D) Drugs, Inc. has no duty to pay Piper because it made a general reward offer that was effectively revoked against Piper and any other use of the product who had not submitted the proper paperwork before the revocation ads appeared.