Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a woman was ordered to pay restitution to her husband because of their recent divorce, even though the couple had signed a written prenuptial agreement prior to getting married which stated that each party would be financially independent and not seek alimony should the couple decide to divorce. Thus, it was morally wrong for the man to change his mind and seek restitution. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist's reasoning? ['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 forego such compensation.', 'It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution.']