Ashley sees a maintenance crew from Acme Co. beginning to resurface her driveway, a service she has not contracted for. Ashley thinks a new driveway would be good, so she doesn’t say anything. If Acme sues Ashley for the value of the resurfacing, (Points : 1)
Ashley wins; she did not have a contract with Acme.
Acme wins: there was an implied unilateral contract.
Acme wins: Ashley unjustly accepted a benefit she could have rejected.
Ashley wins; there is no quasi contract because she was not obligated to send Acme away.
Ashley sees a maintenance crew from Acme Co. beginning to resurface her driveway, a service she has not contracted for. Ashley thinks a new driveway would be good, so she doesn’t say anything. If Acme sues Ashley for the value of the resurfacing,
Acme wins: Ashley unjustly accepted a benefit she could have rejected.
Acme wins: Ashley unjustly accepted a benefit she could have rejected.
Acme wins: Ashley unjustly accepted a benefit she could have rejected.
To understand why Acme would win in this scenario, it is important to consider the concept of unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment occurs when one party receives a benefit at the expense of another party without any legal justification.
In this case, Ashley did not have a contract with Acme for the driveway resurfacing. Despite this, she did not object to Acme performing the service and therefore enjoyed the benefit of having her driveway resurfaced. By allowing Acme to proceed without objection, Ashley has essentially accepted the benefit of the resurfacing.
Acme can argue that they should be compensated for the value of the resurfacing because Ashley accepted the benefit without any contractual obligation. This would be considered unjust enrichment on Ashley's part, as she received a benefit that she could have rejected.
Therefore, in this scenario, Acme would likely win the lawsuit and be entitled to the value of the resurfacing service.