I think it is d for this question
The answer for this question is False
Answer:
Louise's defense is not valid. She was involved in an Implied-in-fact contracts
Explanation:
Implied-in-fact Contracts
This is a contract that is legally enforceable as a result of an agreement made by conduct and from assumed intentions. These conducts and assumed intentions are derived from the relationship among the involved parties.
When Louise saw Midcity Painters painting her house and made no comments, she became involved a implied-in-fact contract. The conduct of Midcity to paint her house and her conduct to be quiet infact formed a legally enforceable contract.
Louise, therefore, liable. However, due to the lack of contractual terms such as payment for the job done, Louise will be liable for the nominally or typically acceptable rate for such a job done. For instance, if a normal house paint job costs $2000, Louise is liable to pay $2000 for the implied contract.
Prporety it is the long-term
An Artificial Monopoly is a very huge firm wherein the production efficiency has no advantage over smaller firms but thrives all competitors out of business, remaining the sole producer of the industry.
