Conner wanted to have a security system installed in his house. He contacted several companies and asked them to submit bids for the installation work. One of them, Alarmist, in turn, requested bids from several wholesalers for the burglar alarms it planned to use if it was awarded the job. Supplier submitted a bid to Alarmist that the latter used in computing the bid that it was preparing for Conner. On September 1, Alarmist sent Conner its bid in which it proposed to install the security system for $12,000. On September 9, the Supplier notified Alarmist that it would be unable to supply any burglar alarms to them. On September 11, Conner sent the following telegram to Alarmist, "I hereby accept your offer to install the security system for $12,000." The alarmist had to pay another wholesaler $3,000 above the price quoted by the Supplier for the burglar alarms. As a result, Alarmist advised Conner that the total price for the job would have to be increased to $15,000. Conner replied that he would hold Alarmist to the initially agreed price of $12,000. The alarmist went ahead and installed the security system but Conner has not yet paid them anything. In an action by Alarmist against Conner for services rendered, Alarmist will probably be able to recover

Question 4Select one:

A.$12,000 because that was the contract price.

B.$15,000 because of an unanticipated change of circumstances after the parties had entered into their contract.

C. only under the theory of unjust enrichment.

D. only in quantum meruit, because by demanding $15,000 Alarmist repudiated its contract with Conner.