West, an Indiana real estate broker, misrepresented to Zimmer that West was licensed in Kansas under the Kansas statute that regulates real estate brokers and requires all brokers to be licensed. Zimmer signed a contract agreeing to pay West a 5% commission for selling Zimmer’s home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmer’s home. If West sued Zimmer for nonpayment of commission, Zimmer would be:
a.Not liable to West for any amount because West did not sign the contract.
b.Not liable to West for any amount because West violated the Kansas licensing requirements.
c.Liable to West for the full commission.
d. Liable to West only for the value of services rendered.
Ninja gives the answer as A whereas Becker says it's B. Ninja explanation is as follows:
“A legally enforceable contract must have both an offer and an acceptance. Since Zimmer signed the contract, an enforceable acceptance would be for West to also sign the contract.”
Which is which? I am inclined towards Beckers answer.