P and D, two men, met and quickly developed a romantic relationship. P accepted D's invitation to spend his 'off season' D's Chester County farm. By 1985, P had permanently resided at D's farm without paying rent, worked a full-time job with a company located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and assisted D in maintaining his house and farm. Among other things, P took care of the farm animals, which included aiding in the breeding of sheep and birds. In 1990, P enrolled at Penn State University for graduate studies. As a result of his academic schedule, he was unable to run the sheep and bird businesses or maintain the farm. Soon thereafter, the parties' relationship soured; P moved out of D's residence in June of 1994. P sued D sounding in fraud, quantum meruit, and implied contract. P sought compensation, in the form of restitution, for the services he rendered to D throughout the thirteen years the two men lived together on the farm. P alleged that D had: promised him compensation for his services rendered to maintain and operate his farm; agreed to compensate him for his help in running an antique cooperative (co-op) that D had purchased; promised him future compensation and the devise of property in a will and codicil; and failed to compensate him for monetary contributions he had made towards D's purchase of real estate on Amelia Island, Florida. D filed a demurrer. The court struck P's claim of fraud for lack of specificity, see Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b), but granting P leave to file an amended complaint. P filed an amended complaint, now including only counts for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and implied contract. D filed a counterclaim seeking $139,300.00 representing reasonable rent for the 139 months P lived on his farm rent-free and as compensation for various utility and telephone bills, taxes, car payments, and other miscellaneous expenses paid by D on P's behalf. P got the verdict on unjust enrichment and against D on the counterclaim. This appeal resulted.