written response to problem

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

6. Over the course of six years, David Hix, on behalf of his company HAD Enterprises, repeatedly asked Wanda Galloway, who owned the property adjacent to Hix's, to allow him to fill in the pond on her prop- erty and to regrade her property to avoid flooding and mosquito problems that plagued both properties. Galloway finally agreed to let Hix do the work on her land. Hix claimed that, in exchange for his labor, he requested to be allowed to use the improved land for parking, either for himself or for HAD Enterprises. Galloway recalled no such agreement. After roughly two years of extensive work by Hix on both his and Galloway's land (during which time Galloway appar- ently expressed concern several times to Hix about the unexpectedly large scope of the work he was doing), Galloway instructed Hix to stop. Even after all that time, the pond was only partially filled. Nonetheless, Hix submitted to Galloway a bill totaling $14,972 for the work he had done to her land. Galloway refused to pay, saying she had never agreed to pay Hix any- thing for the work and had agreed to allow him to commence the work only because it seemed so important to him. Hix sued Galloway for the cost of his work on the land. If he claims Galloway has breached a con- tract between them, will he succeed on that theory? Even if there is no contract between the two, could he recover under the doctrine of quasi-contract