Furrow leased in writing a 100-acre farm from Quark for five years at $2,000 per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $10,000 cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $10,000 and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed.Assume for this question only that Quark is not liable to Furrow for breach of a land-sale contract. In an action by Furrow against Quark for the reasonable value of the improvements that Furrow added to the farm, which of the following theories would best support Furrow's claim?
Quasi-contract, for benefits unofficiously and nongratuitously conferred upon Quark by Furrow.  Tort, for conversion by Quark in retaking possession of the improvements.  Breach of trust by Quark as trustee of a resulting trust of the improvements. Breach by Quark of an implied-in-fact promise (manifested by his retaking possession of the farm and improvements) to compensate Furrow for the improvements