A woman had lived in Apartment 123 in the same apa...

A woman had lived in Apartment 123 in the same apartment complex for six years. On many prior occasions, the woman had hired the same handyman to perform odd jobs in her apartment. The woman, who was leaving town on vacation, telephoned the handyman and said, “If you will replace the tile in my bathroom while I’m on vacation, I will pay you $700. You can get the keys from the superintendent.” The handyman responded, “It’s a deal.” During their telephone conversation, the woman failed to tell the handyman she no longer lived in Apartment 123, but had moved down the hall into Apartment 132. The handyman came to the apartment complex, got the key for Apartment 123 from the superintendent, and re-tiled the bathroom. When the woman returned from her vacation, she noticed that her bathroom tile had not been replaced. She contacted the handyman, who then informed her that he had replaced the tile in Apartment 123.The handyman demanded that the woman pay him $700, but the woman refused. If the handyman sues the woman for payment of the $700 and the woman claims mistake, judgment should be for whom？

A、(A) The handyman, because the woman should have realized that he would replace the tile in Apartment 123.

B、(B) The handyman, because even though no contract existed, he is entitled to quasi-contractual relief under the circumstances.

C、(C) The woman, because the handyman id not replace the tile in the woman’s bathroom.

D、(D) The woman, because no contract existed due to the mutual mistake of the parties.