However, the fact that the agreements concluded between the defendants and the subscribers allow the defendants to pay themselves the fiants in respect of these premiums does not make the collection of the drivers by the defendants an act approved under Chapter 9. Fogel appealed the judgment and challenged both the granting of a summary judgment and the dismissal of his request for a summary decision on two issues (whether he had signed subscription contracts and whether exhaustion of administrative law applied). The defendants are appealing and challenging the court`s decision allowing Fogel to file an amended appeal. (Civ.Code, § 1589 [“Voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to consent to all obligations arising therefrom, to the extent that the facts are known or should be known to the adhesive”]; see also Evid.Code, § 623 [Whenever a party, by its own statement or conduct, has caused another party to consider something to be true and to act according to such a conviction, no dispute arising from such a statement or conduct allows it to contradict it.”) To the extent that the defendants provided services from which Fogel benefited, fogel at least implicitly accepted that the defendants would perform and exchange insurance contracts necessary for the operation of an interbank insurance exchange (see, for example.B § 1305) – he is obliged to pay the defendants the appropriate value of those services.11 (cf. z.B. 1 Vitkin, Cal`s summary . . .