I am stumped on our current discussion and would like the following questions below to be answered after reading this case.Read Case 13-3 in the…

Of course, liability under quasi-contract does not necessarily imply liability for the amount of money promised Reisenfeld under its contract with Network. Instead, the proper measure of liability is the reasonable value of the services Reisenfeld provided to BSI. We must therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand the case for a determination of value. REMANDED for consideration of damages.CRITICAL THINKINGWhat words or phrases important to the reasoning of this decision might be ambiguous? What alternate definitions are possible? How does this ruling appear to be defining the words or phrases? Would another choice affect the acceptability of the conclusion?Provide an example of one piece of new evidence that might lead Judge Boggs to a different conclusion, and explain how this information changes the consideration. ETHICAL DECISION MAKINGDoes this ruling establish a positive precedent in terms of the potential effect on future participants in disputes of this sort?Does this decision appear to follow the Golden Rule guideline? Why or why not? How is this question particularly relative to the person making the judgment, and what sorts of interpersonal differences might lead to a variety of responses?