Regarding assigned case Weingart v$.$ Directoire Restaurant, Inc., $333$ N$.$Y$.$S$\mathrm{.}2$d $806($N$.$Y$.,1972)$:

The plaintiff in this case relied on Klotz, very similar in facts, in which the car$-$parking attendant was found to be an employee. The defendant, necessarily, needed to argue that the cases were not very similar.

What argument did the defendant make? What did the court say about that argument?

Group of answer choices

That the restaurant in that case implicitly agreed to the agency via allowing vehicle keys to be stored inside the restaurant. The court said that that fact is only one to be considered amongst others, and was not dispositive alone.

That the restaurant in that case expressly agreed to the agency via allowing vehicle keys to be stored near the front door of the restaurant. The court said that fact is only one to be considered amongst others.

That the restaurant in that case had an agreement with the attendant. The court said that fact was irrelevant.

That the restaurant in that case contracted with the attendant for valet services. The court said that that fact was dispositive of Douglas not being an employee of the restaurant.