Danuta Swinton was unhappy with a very large maple tree in her front yard. She therefore contacted West End Tree Service (WETS) to discuss the problem. At the end of their discussion, WETS's manager wrote up a document, entitled "Tree Removal," that provided an estimated price of $1950. That price was broken down into three elements: $950 to cut down the tree, $800 to remove the logs and debris, and $200 for a city permit. The work could not be done without the permit. During the same meeting, Danuta signed an application for a tree removal permit. Acting on Danuta's behalf, WETS sent the application to the city along with a cheque for $200. Two weeks later, after the city had issued the permit, WETS went to Danuta's house during the middle of the day, cut down the tree, and hauled it away. When she returned home from work that evening, however, Danuta paid $200 for the permit, but refused to pay anything more. She has persuaded the court that she never actually asked WETS to do anything more than obtain the permit, and that she never thought that they had a contract to actually perform the work. In contrast, WETS has explained that it would never simply obtain a permit on behalf of a customer. Unless it gets paid to actually remove a tree, the job is not worth the hassle. All of WETS's competitors have the same policy. Does Danuta have to pay for WETS's services in removing the tree? Did the parties have a contract?