Jan is considering moving into a new apartment. While showing her the apartment, the landlord tells Jan that he is planning to repaint the apartment and to install new carpeting. Several days later, Jan signs a twelve (12) month lease at a monthly rental of $1,000. There is no mention in the lease about the repainting or the recarpeting. When Jan moves in, she finds that the apartment has been neither repainted or recarpeted. When Jan requests that the landlord do so, he refuses. Jan then has this work done personally (without the landlord's knowledge or consent) at a cost of $6,000. When Jan asks the landlord for reimbursement, he refuses. (Both Jan and the landlord concede that because of the Parol Evidence Rule, repainting and new carpeting are not part of the lease agreement and that the landlord has not breached the lease agreement by failing to provide them). Instead, Jan sues the landlord for the $4,800 on two separate independent theories: Fact Pattern 2: (1) the landlord obtained the lease through misrepresentation and/or fraud; and/or, Fact Pattern 3: (2) the landlord will be unjustly enriched if he is able to get the benefit of her repainting/recarpeting without payment. WHAT IS THE RESULT UNDER EACH THEORY?