Schymanski and Conventz entered into an oral partnership agreement for the purpose of building and operating a fishing lodge. The partnership was on a 50-50 basis, with each to contribute equal shares of cash and equal shares of personal service according to each respective expertise. Conventz was to supervise the construction of the lodge and handle the advertising in Alaska. Schymanski was to conduct a promotional campaign in Germany. After numerous delays and disagreements, Conventz expressed his desire to terminate the partnership. He claimed that he was entitled to compensation for his architectural efforts. Schymanski denied that there was ever an agreement for such compensation. In the absence of an agreement, is Conventz entitled to compensation for his architectural efforts? Explain.