This is a problem solution of Schumacher v Schumacher

please and include the following;

Use your own judgment and don't the official judgment:

Issue :

Holding:

General analysis:

Applied Analysis:

10. In 1994, Schumacher and his wife and their two daugh- ters moved to Finland, Minnesota, to operate a bar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which was owned by his parents. Schumacher claimed that his parents in- duced him to leave his previous job and to make the move by orally agreeing to (1) provide him a job man- aging the inn for life and (2) leave the business and a large parcel of land to him when his first parent died. Schumacher was given free reign in managing the inn and was allowed to retain all profits of the business, but he was not given any salary or wage. While he was operating the inn, Schumacher used his own funds to build a home for his family on his parents' land, install a well, buy equipment for the business, and develop various marketing tools for the business. In 1998, Schumacher suspected that his parents were about to sell the inn and the adjoining property. He brought suit for a restraining order to prevent them from doing so, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other claims. In October 1998, the parents no- tified Schumacher that his employment at the inn and his right to possess the adjoining property were ter- minated. The parents moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that Schumacher's oral contract claim was invalid because the contract needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota law. However, did Schumacher have a valid claim for unjust enrichment