Matilda and John Perry owned property that was damaged by fire. The Perrys were insured against property damage caused by fire under an insurance policy issued by AFRD Insurance Company of Canada. AFRD appointed BACC Adjusters to quantify the loss and to administer the claim. BACC prepared specifications outlining the work to be done and sought bids from contractors. After receiving two bids, BACC asked the Perrys if there were others who should beinvited to bid. The Perrys gave BACC the name of two construction companies including ACE Construction. ACE quoted BACC a price of $128 000 plus GST and got the job. ACE took instructions from BACC, and it sought BACC’s approval for any extra charges. Sometimes,however, one of the Perrys would be on-site to observe the work and express an opinion. Payment was made by AFDR periodically issuing a cheque payable to both ACE and the Perrys. The Perrys would endorse the cheque and deposit it in ACE’s account. Over the course of the project, problems arose between the Perrys and ACE. The Perrys complained about the quality of the work and ACE complained that the Perrys were making unreasonable demands. Eventually the Perrys phoned ACE to say that they did not want ACE on the job. ACE considered that a dismissal and returned the keys to the property. ACE sued the Perrys to recover approximately $60 000 that it alleged was still owing for labour and materials. The Perrys denied having contracted with ACE, arguing that BACC was not their agent. What is the nature of the relationship between BACC and the Perrys? between BACC and AFDR? between the Perrys and ACE? between AFDR and ACE?