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, after demand and refusal, sues BCD for the Bobb sale commission, which of the following is the most likely to result?
John will win, because he had procured the sale of the computer.  John will win, because he had promised Bobb to assist in making the equipment work.  BCD will win, because Franklin is entitled to the commission on a quantum meruit basis.  BCD will win, because John was not employed as a BCD salesperson when Bobb was billed for the computer.