1. The core issue in this case was whether a valid bankruptcy claim or contract existed. Larry Browneller took his 1963 Chevy sports car to Hubert ("Debtor\"), a semi-retired mechanic, and requested that the Debtor repair the car and make it show-worthy. Debtor told him that he could not make it \"show quality\" and Larry insisted that Hubert do \"a damn good job." Debtor kept the car and worked on it for several years with Larry's knowledge. When Hubert nished the work, Larry refused to pay the bill alleging that it was not "show quality\" as originally requested. Did the Court agree with Browneller's argument that Debtor did not produce a car that was \"show quality\" as requested? (3 Points) Explain whether the Court found that a legally binding and enforceable Contract existed between Browneller and the Debtor and the primary reason for its decision. (5 Points) Explain why the Court rejected Browneller's claim that the Debtor Hubert was negligent in xing his Chevy sports car. (2 Points)