Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ordered to make restitution to a company because of a bungled construction job, even though the company had signed a written agreement prior to entering into the contract that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed. Thus, it was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist's reasoning? ['It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution.', 'It is morally wrong for one party not to abide by its part of an agreement only if the other party abides by its part of the agreement.', 'It is morally wrong for one person to seek to penalize another person for an action that the first person induced the other person to perform.', 'It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation.']