Peter Pin contracted with Castle Builders, Inc., which was owned by Scott King, to remodel a house. King estimated that the remodeling would cost around $500,000. Eventually, however, Pin paid King more than $1.3 million. Pin filed a suit in an Ohio state court against Castle, alleging breach of contract and fraud, among other things. During the trial, it was revealed that Castle had issued no shares of stock and had commingled personal and corporate funds. The minutes of the corporate meetings all looked exactly the same. In addition, King could not provide an accounting for the Pin project. In particular, he could not explain evidence of double and triple billing nor demonstrate that the amount Pin paid had actually been spent on the remodeling project. What would a court consider in attempting to decide this case, what should it ultimately decide, and why?

I feel like there is a lot going on in this case question and would appreciate a break down of what is going on so I can try to come to a conclusion