Dewar, a developer, needing a water well on one of his projects, met several times about the matter with Waterman, a well driller. Subsequently, Waterman sent Dewar an unsigned typewritten form captioned "WELL DRILLING PROPOSAL" and stating various terms the two had discussed but not agreed upon, including a "proposed price of $5,000." The form concluded, "This proposal will not become a contract until signed by you [Dewar] and then returned to and signed by me [Waterman]." Dewar signed the form and returned it to Waterman, who neglected to sign it but promptly began drilling the well at the proposed site on Dewar's project. After drilling for two days, Waterman told Dewar during one of Dewar's daily visits that he would not finish unless Dewar would agree to pay twice the price recited in the written proposal. Dewar refused, Waterman quit, and Dewar hired Subbo to drill the well to completion for a price of $7,500. In an action by Dewar against Waterman for damages, which of the following is the probable decision? 
Dewar wins, because his signing of Waterman's form constituted an acceptance of an offer by Waterman.  Dewar wins, because Waterman's commencement of performance constituted an acceptance by Waterman of an offer by Dewar and an implied promise by Waterman to complete the well.  Waterman wins, because he never signed the proposal as required by its terms.  Waterman wins, because his commencement of performance merely prevented Dewar from revoking his offer, made on a form supplied by Waterman, and did not obligate Waterman to complete the well. 