Let's focus on reviewing the facts of the case of Roger's Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols so you can answer the questions provided. The issue here is whether or not the extra work provided by Roger's Backhoe Service was part of an implied agreement with Nichols. The company by Nichols was hired to demolish a foundation next door to Nichols' business to provide room for the latter to be expanded. During the project, the city informed the company that it would need to drain the water in the area into the city storm sewer. This meant excavating to reach the sewer and dispose of the standing water. If this work was not completed, the project could not progress. The company did the necessary work.
Nichols refused to pay the company for the extra work needed to drain the water. The company sued, claiming that it had an implied agreement to do all the work needed for the project. A district court ruled in the company's favor, for the company's claim met the necessary elements of an implied agreement: the services were performed for the benefit of the recipient, and the work was done with the recipient’s knowledge of its necessity and of the expectation that the work would be paid for.
An appeals court reversed the decision and said that there was no actual, enforceable contract, but the Iowa Supreme Court decided that the first court had been correct. It supported the implied agreement claimed by Roger's Backhoe Service because the work done to drain the water was necessary to the project (required for city approval), because Nichols knew about the work and benefited from it, and because the company's charges were reasonable.