This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1648 Larry Grimlie, Appellant,

vs. Mohamed El Deeb, Respondent Filed May 31, 2016 Affirmed Worke, Judge Wright County District Court File No. 86-CV-14-1355 Larry Grimlie, Monticello, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Todd P. Young, Roseville, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Worke, Pres iding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Smith, Tracy, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N WORKE , Judge Appellant argues that the district court e rred in denying him recovery for preparing an estimate for repairs to respo ndent’s property. We affirm.2 FACTS Respondent Mohamed El Deeb owns Bolt on Buffalo Farm. Fr om 2008-2011, he also leased another farm, Wave rly Stallion Station Ranch. Horse shelters and bale feeders at Waverly El Deeb purchased two horse shelters and two bale feeders from appellant Larry Grimlie to keep at Waverly. In 2010, El Deeb as ked Grimlie to repair the shelters and feeders. The parties agreed on pricing, and Grimlie removed the shelters and feeders from Waverly to repair them. Grimlie thereafter refused to return El Deeb’s property. In early 2012, Grimlie sold El Deeb’s shelters and feeder s to a third party. Windstorm damage at Buffalo Farm On October 26, 2010, a winds torm caused damage at Buffalo Farm. El Deeb filed a claim with his insurer, Chu bb Insurance. Grimlie submitte d a bid. Chubb agreed to pay for repairs based on Grimlie’s estimate. But nobody made any representation to Chubb that Grimlie was contracted to do the repairs; in fact, Chubb requested that El Deeb obtain more than one bid, and told him to “use the contractor of [his] choice.” El Deeb entered into a written contract with AA Contracting, Inc. Complaint In March 2014, Grimlie file d a complaint, alleging that El Deeb contracted with him to prepare the estimate and make the re pairs and then breach ed their contract by hiring a different contractor. El Deeb filed a counterclaim seeking reimbursement for the shelters and feeders.3 Following a court trial, the district c ourt concluded that Gr imlie failed to show that he and El Deeb entered in to an agreement regarding the c ontracting bid. The district court dismissed Grimlie’s complaint becaus e El Deeb was entitled to request multiple bids, was not obligated to accept a particular bid, and credibly testified that he chose AA over Grimlie because it is a licen sed contractor and Grimlie is not. The district court also concluded that El Deeb established that Gr imlie converted the she lters and feeders by selling them to a third party afte r Grimlie did not receive the c ontracting bid. This appeal follows. D E C I S I O N Contract Grimlie first argues that the estimate he pr epared for the storm-damage repairs at Buffalo Farm was a legal contract. The existence of a contract is a question of fact to be dete rmined by the factfinder. Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp. , 486 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. 1992). An appellate court will not set asid e findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “Findings of fact are clea rly erroneous only if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm convicti on that a mistake has been made.” Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press , 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted); see Rogers v. Moore , 603 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999) (stating that if there is reasonable evidence tending to support the district court’s findings of fact, an appellate court will not reverse those findings).4 Here, the district court found that the par ties never entered into a written contract. Grimlie concedes that it was El Deeb’s “verbal request” that created the contract. The district court found that Grimlie merely submitted a bid, and concluded that an unsuccessful bidder is not entitled to damages. See Tel. Assocs., Inc. v. St. Louis Cty. Bd. , 364 N.W.2d 378, 382 (Minn. 1985) (stating that the general rule is that an unsuccessful bidder is not entitled to damages). The district court was correct. A contractor’s bid is an offer. 1 Samuel Williston, Williston on Contracts § 4:10, 338-39 (Richard A. Lord ed., 4th ed. 1990) (sta ting general rule that bid is considered an offer). But El Deeb did not accept Grimlie’s o ffer. El Deeb requested several bids and testified that he chose a contractor licensed to build homes, somethin g that Grimlie is not licensed to do. El Deeb entered into a cont ract with AA, demonstrating his rejection of Grimlie’s offer. Grimlie’s estimate may ha ve been used by Chubb to determine the reasonable cost of the repairs, but any contract for the repa irs would have been between Grimlie and El Deeb, no t Grimlie and Chubb. Cf. Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc. , 330 N.W.2d 693, 695 (Minn. 1983 ) (stating that no contract is formed between a general and subcontractor wh en the general contract or merely lists the subcontractor in a bid). Grimlie raises a promissory-estoppel argument for the first time on appeal. Because Grimlie did not raise th is theory in district court, we decline to address it. Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts do not address issues or theories not raised in district court).5 Grimlie also claims that repairing th e shelters and feeders was part of the performance of the contract for the storm-dama ge repairs. But the evidence shows that El Deeb’s shelters and feeders that Grimlie agreed to repair had no connection to the damage at Buffalo Farm. Thus, Gr imlie’s assertion is baseless. Unjust enrichment Grimlie also argues that El Deeb was un justly enriched “by retaining the overhead and profit due” him. This court reviews a deni al of an unjust-enrichment claim, which is an equitable remedy, for an abuse of discretion. ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc. , 544 N.W.2d 302, 305 (Minn. 1996) (s tating that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy); City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc. , 312 Minn. 277, 279, 251 N.W.2d 642, 644 (1977) (stating standa rd of review for equitable relief). A party succeeds on an unjust- enrichment claim when he establishes that (1) a person received something of value, (2) the recipient was not entitled to the thing of value, and (3) it would be un just to allow the recipient to retain the benefit. Schumacher v. Schumacher , 627 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 2001). Generally, an unjustenrichment claim does not lie si mply because a party benefits from the efforts of another; instead, “it must be shown that a party was unj ustly enriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully.” First Nat’l Bank of St. Paul v. Ramier , 311 N.W.2d 502, 504 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted); see Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer , 394 N.W.2d 505, 514 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that “unjust” can also mean “unconscionable by reason of a bad motive”).6 Here, Grimlie prepared an estimate and C hubb paid El Deeb’s claim. But Chubb did not pay El Deeb’s claim because Grimlie pr epared an estimate. Nothing in the record shows that El Deeb was unjustly enriched because Grimlie prepar ed an estimate that Chubb used to determine the reasonablen ess of the cost of the repairs. Affirmed.