Chapter 13 7, 8, 9

Karolina Bulaj, Samantha Ram, Amro Ibrahim, Michael Weston, Kelsi Myers

7. The letter of October 15th does constitute an offer to enter a unilateral contract because using both foreseeability and the reasonable person test, it was not clear whether the offer was made in the letter or after the results were known. Because of this ambiguity, the court sided with the plaintiffs because there were two reasonable interpretations.

8. Yes it is a quasi-contract because of the enrichment clause. The business grew a substantial amount during the time of her employment and as a result of her contribution and therefore she should be rewarded for the beneficial goods and services that she bestowed on Anthony and Mag Instrument. The value of services provided is greater than the value of benefits provided.

9. Feingold does not have a valid quasi-contract because there was no enrichment to the defendant. The contract wasn't made in writing and the amount demanded from the lawyer was deemed excessive, by using the reasonable person test.