Quasi Contract. Middleton Motors, Inc., a struggling Ford dealership in Madison, Wisconsin, sought managerial and fi nancial assistance from Lindquist Ford, Inc., a successful Ford dealership in Bettendorf, Iowa. While the two dealerships negotiated the terms for the services and a cash infusion, Lindquist sent Craig Miller, its general manager, to assume control of Middleton. After about a year, the parties had not agreed on the terms, Lindquist had not invested any funds, Middleton had not made a profi t, and Miller was fi red without being paid. Lindquist and Miller fi led a suit in a federal district court against Middleton based on quasi contract, seeking to recover Miller’s pay for his time. What are the requirements to recover on a quasi- contract theory? Which of these requirements is most likely to be disputed in this case? Why? [Lindquist Ford, Inc. v. Middleton Motors, Inc., 557 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2009)]