An oral agreement was made between multiple parties to put together some money and open a bar and restaurant. The men first had to create a joint company. However, one potential owner was not able to provide his share of the funding at the time of the company formation and was subsequently pushed out of the deal by the other owners, who formed the company without him. The man then sued the owners. In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff had no documentation to support a cause of action. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's complaint and statement of fact could support a breach-of-contract claim when no contract seemed to exist. Furthermore, the court considered the idea that a theory of quasi-contract could maintain a cause of action that could consist of the theft of ownership opportunity and/or breach of fiduciary duty. How do you think the court ultimately decided? [Don v. Broger, 2012 Slip Op 51934U.]