[Portraits] Tori, a famous portrait painter, agreed to paint Harry's portrait for $4,000. She also agreed to paint the portraits of Britt's two Schipperke show dogs, Chauncey and Cheerio. Britt agreed to pay Tori $10,000 for the two Schipperke portraits. Tori charged Britt more because she met the spoiled dogs, and they really got on her nerves. Tori subsequently fell behind on finishing Harry's portrait, so she assigned the right to receive the money for the dog portraits to her assistant, Justin, and delegated the duty to Justin to paint the dog portraits. Justin eagerly accepted, and painted the portraits. Tori also assigned to Justin the right to receive payment from Harry to satisfy various payments she owed him for other duties. The contract Tori had with Britt did not address assignment in any way. The contract Tori had with Harry, however, prohibited the right to assign payment for services received. Harry considered himself to be an experienced business person and insisted on that antiassignment clause because he had read somewhere that such a provision was a good idea. Tori finished the portrait of Harry and called him to come and pick it up. Meanwhile, a disgruntled secretary who disliked Tori told both Britt and Harry about the assignments to Justin. Britt was furious and refused to pick up the portrait or to pay anyone. Harry likewise refused to pay for his portrait.

What would be the most likely result if Tori sues Britt for the $10,000 payment?

• Tori will win only if Justin did a good job on the portraits.
• Tori will win regardless of what type of job Justin did on the portraits so long as he was a qualified portrait painter.
• Tori will win because Justin was employed as her assistant.
• Tori will win because the contract did not contain an express provision prohibiting assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties.
• Britt will win because the portrait was personal in nature and could not be delegated.