Weadbeat Dan hired real$-$estate agent Biff Landry to sell his home. Landry repeatedly asked Dan to sign a letter agreeing to pay him a $10\%$ commission, payable at closing, but Dan refused. Instead, Dan offered several times to negotiate with Landry about the amount and terms of the commission. Nonetheless, Landry insisted that his commission must be $10$ percent of the final price and that it was due at closing. When the deal was finalized, Landry sent Dan a bill for $10\%$ commission, which remained unpaid. Landry filed suit for breach of an implied$-$in$-$fact contract. Did a quasi$-$contract exist between Landry and Dan?

a$.$ No$,$ because Dan never assented to the terms of Landry's offer. Because of the parties' failure to agree on the amount of the commission, any implied promise to pay a commission would be unenforceable.

b$.$ No$,$ because Dan never agreed to pay Landry's $10\%$ commission.

c$.$ Yes, Landry is entitled to a commission because Dan received a service $($the finding and purchase of a home$)$ with the understanding that a commission was to be paid, however, the amount of the commission is a question of fact that remains to be decided.

d$.$ Yes, Landry is entitled to receive the $10\%$ commission because Dan received a service $($the finding and purchase of a home$)$ with the understanding that a commission was to be paid.

Clear my choice