BCD, a manufacturer of computers, pays its salespeople a salary of $1,000 per month and a commission of five percent on billings actually rendered for machines that they sell. BCD salespeople are employed at will under written agreements which provide that in order to receive a commission the salesperson must be in the employment of the company when the bill is sent to the customer. In 1976, John, a salesperson for BCD, worked for eight months to get an order from Bobb Corporation for a large $750,000 computer. He consulted extensively with Bobb's top executives and worked with its operating personnel to develop detailed specifications for the new equipment. He also promised Bobb, with BCD's knowledge and approval, to assist Bobb for six months after installation in making the equipment work. On January 1, 1977, Bobb signed an order, and on March 1, the computer was installed. On March 15, BCD fired John on the stated ground that he had failed to meet his 1975 and 1976 sales quotas. John thought that BCD was correct in this statement. Another salesperson, Franklin, was thereupon assigned to service the Bobb account. On March 31, BCD billed Bobb for the computer."Assume for this question only that BCD's termination of John's employment was not wrongful. If John sues BCD for the reasonable value of his services, which of the following is the most likely result?
John will win, because BCD benefited as a result of John's services.  John will win, because BCD made an implied-in-fact promise to pay a reasonable commission for services that result in sales.  John will lose, because there is an express contractual provision pre-empting the subject of compensation for his services.  John will lose, because he cannot perform his agreement to assist the customer for six months