Louise owned a house next to Robert's house. Robert made a contract with Midcity Painters to paint his house. The painters arrived to paint Robert's house, but mistakenly painted Louise's house. She saw the painters at work and made no comment. Later, Midcity Painters sent Louise a bill for painting her house. She claimed that she was not liable because she had not made any contract with them. Is this a valid defense?

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.