Ronald Schwegel (defendant) orally agreed to “restore” an automobile for George Anderson (plaintiff) for $6,000. Schwegel believed that “restore” meant restoration only of the body of the automobile, while Anderson believed it also included engine repairs. Schwegel later informed Anderson that the automobile needed substantial engine work to make it drivable, and Anderson authorized him to do the work without asking whether the engine repair would be included in the original $6,000 cost. Before work was completed, Anderson received an itemized statement of work that had been completed so far, which exceeded $6,000, to which Anderson did not object. The final cost of work totaled $9,800. Anderson had previously paid $5,000 and refused to pay the remaining $4,800. Schwegel refused to return the vehicle. Anderson filed an action against Schwegel, seeking enforcement of the $6,000 contract price and recovery of the automobile. After trial, the magistrate found that no contract between the parties existed, because there was no agreement on the meaning of the word “restore.” The magistrate awarded Schwegel $4,800 for the reasonable value of services and materials retained by Anderson, which included a 20 percent markup that Schwegel charged on some of the work. The district court affirmed. Anderson appealed.