Louise owned a house next to Robert's house. Robert made a contract with Midcity Painters to paint his house. The painters arrived to paint Robert's house, but mistakenly painted Louise's house. She saw the painters at work and made no comment. Later, Midcity Painters sent Louise a bill for painting her house. She claimed that she was not liable because she had not made any contract with them. Is this a valid defense that would protect her from having to pay Midcity Painters? Please explain in detail whether it is or is not a sufficient defense.

If you believe an additional fact (or facts) is necessary to determine whether Louise had a valid defense that would relieve her of payment to Midcity Painters, set out that fact (or facts) and explain in detail why this fact (or facts) did or did not relieve her of the obligation to pay themes

In the event there is a set of facts that constitute a valid defense to the formation of a valid contract, would Midcity Painters be entitled to restitution under the doctrine of unjust enrichment?Explain you answer in detail.