Nalini recently moved into a new house that they purchased, which needs major renovations. The exterior of
Question:
1. Peter isn't eligible to recover the $5,000 from the lawsuit against Nalini since there was no actual agreement or contract between the two parties. Peter offered his services without Nalini's permission and Nalini never asked Peter to paint their house, they simply observed.
2. This falls under the quais-contract/unjust enrichment theory, in this case, Nalini didn't benefit from Peter's services since they didn't seek out his services and there was never a contract of how long his services would take and how much they would cost. Peter could argue that there was an express/implied contract, however, Nalini's silence doesn't prove to be acceptance since they had no prior dealings before this incident.
Management Accounting
ISBN: 9780730369387
4th Edition
Authors: Leslie G. Eldenburg, Albie Brooks, Judy Oliver, Gillian Vesty, Rodney Dormer, Vijaya Murthy, Nick Pawsey