In simple terms, an implied contract is one where the terms of the contract are determined by the “conduct of the parties” rather than by clearly defined (written or oral) terms. Implied-in-fact contracts are litigated all the time, in large part because a defendant says there is no contract and therefore there is no “duty to perform.”
What are the issues in the below case? What is the court tasked to decide? What is the court’s definition of an implied-in-fact contract? Who do you think will ultimately prevail?