Case Problem with Sample Answer In December 2000, Nextel South Corp., a communications fi rm, contacted R. A. Clark Consulting, Ltd., an executive search fi rm, about fi nding an employment manager for Nextel’s call center in Atlanta, Georgia. Over the next six months, Clark screened, evaluated, and interviewed more than three hundred candidates.

Clark provided Nextel with more than fi fteen candidate summaries, including one for Dan Sax. Nextel hired Sax for the position at an annual salary of $75,000. Sax started work on June 25, 2001, took two weeks’ vacation, and quit on July 31 in the middle of a project. Clark spent the next six weeks looking for a replacement, until Nextel asked Clark to stop. Clark billed Nextel for its service, but Nextel refused to pay, asserting, in part, that the parties had not signed an agreement. Nextel’s typical agreement specifi ed payment to an employment agency of 20 percent of an employee’s salary. Clark fi led a suit in a Georgia state court against Nextel to recover the reasonable value of its services. What is a quasi contract? What would Clark have to show to recover on this basis? Should the court rule in Clark’s favor? Explain. [Nextel South Corp. v. R. A. Clark Consulting, Ltd., 266 Ga.App. 85, 596 S.E.2d 416 (2004)]
—After you have answered Problem 9–5, compare your answer with the sample answer given on the Web site that accompanies this text. Go to www.cengage.com/blaw/blt, select “Chapter 9,” and click on “Case Problem with Sample Answer.”