Question

Which of the following was the result on appeal in Reisenfeld & Co. v. The Network Group Inc.; Builders Square Inc.; Kmart Corp., the case in the text involving whether the plaintiff could recover from BSI in the situation in which BSI contracted with Network Group to lease property, and Network Group contracted with the plaintiff agreeing to pay a certain commission for his work but then defaulted on the contract?

A. The court ruled that because it was a third-party beneficiary, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the commissions claimed.
B. The court ruled that because it was a third-party beneficiary, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the services rendered, not necessarily the contractual amount promised for commissions.
C. The court ruled that because a quasi-contract was involved, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the commissions claimed.
D. The court ruled that because a quasi-contract was involved, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the services rendered, not necessarily the contractual amount promised for commissions.E. The court ruled that because the plaintiff did not have a contract with BSI, the plaintiff was entitled to no recovery from BSI.

Answer 1

D. The court ruled that because a quasi-contract was involved, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the services rendered, not necessarily the contractual amount promised for commissions.

Step-by-step explanation: