Also, small claims court is not based on tort law, it's quasi-contract [1]. So the judge (not a jury) uses the principle of equity. Even if Apple did send someone (unlikely), it's still a question of what is fair, not a question of what is contractually obligated.
I'd never heard of this, but it is interesting. For example:
"To illustrate, assume that a homebuilder has built a house on Alicia's property. However, the homebuilder signed a contract with Bobby, who claimed to be Alicia's agent but, in fact, was not. Although there is no binding contract between Alicia and the homebuilder, most courts would allow the homebuilder to recover the cost of the services and materials from Alicia to avoid an unjust result. A court would accomplish this by creating a fictitious agreement between the homebuilder and Alicia and holding Alicia responsible for the cost of the builder's services and materials."
As a home builder a great strategy is to work with fraudulent agents, and build homes on a bunch of plots. And then sue the landowners.
The key simply appears to give the appearance that you're working in good faith, but once you do that your entitled to all services rendered, whether or not the "customer" actually wants it or not.
Although since it is small claims, probably not worth it.
But may be worth it for web design companies. Do the same thing -- build crappy websites for companies, charge them for the service and product.
It isn't always about winning.