A. Smith wins; there was no contract upon which Ajax could recoverand people are not liable for benefits that are thrust uponthem.B. Smith wins; unjust enrichment does not apply here because MrSmith had no duty to tell Ajax that it had the wrong house.C. Ajax wins; this is a case of a contract implied in-fact and MrSmith implicity agreed to pay for the garage.D. Ajax wins; although there is no real contract this is a case ofunjust enrichment and because Mr Smith accepted the garage hemust pay for it.