B. She is correct. The neighbor will be required to pay Jackson based upon an
implied-in-fact contract.
C. She is correct. The neighbor will be required to pay Jackson based upon an
implied-in-law contract.
D. She is correct. The neighbor will be required to pay Jackson based upon an express
contract.
E. She is incorrect. The neighbor will not be required to pay Jackson.
“Wedding Plans.” Selena, a certified public accountant, is hired by Bob to do an audit
on his business. He tells her that the audit results will be used by him in an attempt to
obtain a $10,000 loan, probably from ABC Bank. Later, however, Bob changes his
mind and uses the approved financial statements from Selena to get a loan for $100,000
from XYZ Bank. On the same day that she was hired by Bob, Selena, who specializes
in reviewing financial statements for companies seeking loans, was approached by Carl
who asked her to review his financial statements so that he could get a loan for $10,000
from an unspecified bank. Selena approved the statements, and he got a loan from ABC
Bank. Additionally, Alice requested that Selena review her financial statements so that
she could get a loan of $25,000 from a rich uncle. Selena is a bit uneasy about Alice
because she believes that Alice is somewhat untrustworthy. Therefore, Selena requires
that Alice agree in writing that the report will be transmitted only to the uncle, not to
any other potential lenders. Selena approved the financial statements but, in fact, Alice
uses the approved statements to get a loan for $25,000 from XYZ Bank. During the
time that she had set aside to audit and review the financial statements of Bob, Carl, and
Alice, Selena was also preparing for her wedding. She was engaged in choosing menus,
dress fittings, and parties. All of this negatively affected her work and she negligently
approved all financial statements referenced. Unfortunately, Bob, Carl, and Alice ended
up defaulting on the loans. The lenders sued Selena.
Under the Restatement Test, as discussed in the case in the text, Bily v. Arthur Young &