Mr. and Mrs. Smith contract with Paul's landscaping service to "landscape our home in Orange County," twice a month for $150. Unknown to Paul, Mr. and Mrs. Smith have three homes in Orange County: one in Huntington Beach; one in Newport Beach, and one in Irvine. Paul shows up at the Huntington Beach home on a Saturday when the Smiths are there and they let Paul in the gate to perform the landscaping services. The grounds of the Huntington Beach home were the smallest of the Smiths' three homes, and the fair market value of his services at the Huntington Beach home was only $100. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Smith refuse to pay anything, claiming the contract was for the Irvine house. Their argument is the contract was unenforceable based on indefiniteness as to which residence was intended. In an action by Paul for payment, what result?
(A) The contract is unenforceable because of the indefiniteness as to which residence was intended, but Paul can recover for the $100 fair market value of his services for the Huntington beach home on a quantum meruit basis.
(B) The contract is unenforceable because it was not in writing, but Paul can recover for the $100 fair market value of his services for the Huntington Beach home on a quantum meruit basis.
(C) The contract is enforceable because the contract is sufficiently definite regardless of the Smiths' conduct.
(D) The contract is enforceable because Paul was allowed to landscape the Huntington Beach home by the Smiths, and Paul is entitled to $150.