Over the course of six years, David Hix, on behalf of his company HAD Enterprises, had repeatedly asked Wanda Galloway, who owned the property adjacent to Hix’s, to allow him to fill in the pond on her property and to regrade her property to avoid flooding and mosquito problems that plagued both properties. Galloway finally agreed to let Hix do the work on her land. Hix claimed that, in exchange for his labor, he requested to be allowed to use the improved land for parking, either for himself or for HAD Enterprises. Galloway recalled no such agreement. After roughly two years of extensive work by Hix on both his and Galloway’s land (during which time Galloway apparently expressed concern several times to Hix about the unexpectedly large scope of the work he was doing), Galloway instructed Hix to stop. Even after all that time, the pond was only partially filled. Nonetheless, Hix submitted to Galloway a bill totaling $14,972 for the work he had done to her land. Galloway refused to pay, saying she had never agreed to pay Hix anything for the work and had agreed to allow him to commence the work only because it seemed so important to him. Hix sued Galloway for the cost of his work on the land. If he claims Galloway has breached a contract between them, will he succeed on that theory? Even if there is no contract between the two, could he recover under the doctrine of quasi-contract?