What was the court's holding in Wrench,LLC,Shields,and Rinks,LLC v.Taco Bell,the case in the text in which the plaintiff contended that,for an implied contract claim,it was only required to prove that Taco Bell understood that Wrench expected to be compensated if Taco Bell used its Psycho Chihuahua character and/or related ideas?
A)The court found that the only relevant question was whether the parties knew compensation was expected,and there was evidence to support an implied in fact contract.
B)The court found that the only relevant question was whether the parties knew compensation was expected,however,there was evidence to support an implied in fact contract
C)The court found that the plaintiff must establish all elements of an implied in fact contract,but failed to do so.
D)The court found that the plaintiff must prove the parties agreed on all essential terms of whatever contract plaintiff alleges was entered into by the parties,and that the plaintiff met this burden of proof.
E)The court found there was no evidence to infer an implied in fact contract.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The court stated "the only relevant question was whether the parties knew that
compensation was expected if Taco Bell used Wrench's ideas,without regard to whether the parties reached any agreement on the specific terms of a contract".As to the issue of whether there was evidence to support an implied in fact contract,the court affirmed in favor of Wrench.

What Was the Court's Holding in Wrench,LLC,Shields,and Rinks,LLC V