单项选择题
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, 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.
