Nalini recently moved into a new house that they purchased, which needs major renovations. The exterior of the house is in obvious need of a new paint job, as the brown walls are faded and pealing badly. Peter, a professional house painter, drives by Nalini's house and notices that their house needs to be repainted brown. Peter goes to Home Depot, buys brown paint, and paints the house, while Nalini watches from inside the house. It takes him 2 full days to paint the house. After painting the house, Peter send Nalini a bill for $5,000 for his services, but they refuse to pay the bill. 

1. Peter isn't eligible to recover the $5,000 from the lawsuit against Nalini since there was no actual agreement or contract between the two parties. Peter offered his services without Nalini's permission and Nalini never asked Peter to paint their house, they simply observed. 

2. This falls under the quais-contract/unjust enrichment theory, in this case, Nalini didn't benefit from Peter's services since they didn't seek out his services and there was never a contract of how long his services would take and how much they would cost. Peter could argue that there was an express/implied contract, however, Nalini's silence doesn't prove to be acceptance since they had no prior dealings before this incident.

Peter files a lawsuit against Nalini for $5,000. Can Peter recover? Under what theory?  Explain why or why not.