Farmer A leased over 5,000 acres of farm land in northern Ohio for one year.Subsequently he signed a second 1 year lease.During each year he harvested the crops and prepared the land for the next season's crops.During negotiations for the next lease, he began preparation of the land for planting, as was the local custom.Unfortunately Farmer A and his land lord couldn't come to terms and the third year's lease was never signed.Under these facts, what is A's best theory of recovery of the value of the land preparations he made?

options:

1) A should sue for breach of contract to recover his lost profits for the crops he didn't get to plant.

2) A should sue in quasi-contract to recovery the value of the work he did in preparing the land for planting in the third year.

3) A has no remedy in contract law because he should have been more careful about working the land before he had a binding contract.

4) A should sue for promissory estoppel because he was relying on the third year's lease to make his living.