Express and Implied Contracts - Explained
Express, Implied in Fact, Implied in Law
Written by Jason Gordon
Updated at September 24th, 2021
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
-
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Courses
Table of Contents
What is an Express Contract?What is an implied-in-fact contract?What is an implied-in-law contract?Discussion QuestionPractice QuestionAcademic ResearchWhat is an Express Contract?
An express contract arises from interactions in which parties actually discuss the agreement and the promised terms. The express contract does not have to be formal or in writing. It simply requires that the parties express their intentions in an agreement.
- Example: One person expressly offers to sell a widget to another person. The other person accepts the offer by saying the she will buy it. The parties have an expressed contract because they have stated an offer, stated an acceptance, and identified consideration. These expressions can be verbal, as in this situation, or written.
What is an implied-in-fact contract?
An implied-in-fact contract arises from the conduct of the parties, rather than from words. That is, the parties interact in a manner that constitutes a legally enforceable contract. This means that all of the elements of an enforceable contract can be inferred from the actions of the parties.
- Example: Ellen asks Albert, an attorney, for professional advice. Ellen knows that Albert is an attorney and charges for his advice. Asking Albert for his professional advice implies a promise from Ellen to pay the going rate for that advice. This is true even though Ellen and Albert did not make an express promise to pay for it.
What is an implied-in-law contract?
An implied-in-law contract is a contractual relationship ordered by the court. It lacks the mutual asset element of a contract, but the court deems the interactions between parties to be a contract under the law.
This court action is generally taken to avoid an unjust result, such as when one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another. The court will hold that the law implies a duty on the first party to pay the second, even though the elements to find a legally enforceable contract between the two parties are absent.
- Example: Bell routinely rakes leave in the neighborhood for extra money. She rakes leaves for lots of houses and sometimes forgets which houses have requested her services. She begins raking James's yard, having forgotten that she never worked out an agreement to do so. James often pays individuals to rake his yard and has plenty of money to do so. At the end of the job, Bell asks James for $20 for her effort. If James refuses to pay the court may hold that it would be unfair for James to receive this value and not pay something for it. As such, the court could hold that an implied-in-law contract to pay for Bells services.
Next Article: Requirements to Form a Contract Back to: CONTRACT LAW
Related Topics
- What is a Contract?
- Sources of contract law?
- Unilateral Contract vs a Bilateral Contract?
- Offer, Acceptance, Consideration?
- Enforceable Contract vs. a Valid Contract?
- What is a Void Contract vs a Voidable Contract?
- Adhesion Contract
- Mental Capacity to contract?
- Requirement of a Lawful Purpose?
- Common types of Voidable Contract?
Discussion Question
How do you feel about implied contracts? Should all contracts be required to be expressed? What are some arguments for and against this approach? What do you think is the justification for recognizing implied contracts?
Practice Question
Kyle agrees to purchase building material from Anna, a new employee of a construction materials company. Anna executes a contract but makes an error when pricing the material. Per the terms of the agreement, Kyle will pay far less than the cost of the material. Kyle realizes this, but he stays quiet. Kyle uses the material before Anna catches the error. She sends Kyle an additional bill to cover the cost of the material, but not profit. Kyle refuses to pay the additional amount. What might a court do in this situation?
- Answer: The court will consider the elements that created the legal contractual obligations between the parties in the dispute. There was an express contract between the seller and the buyer as of the cost of the goods. However, a small omission on quoting and billing the buyer put the seller and a disadvantage. To remedy this, the court will consider the facts upon which the original contract was formed. This is when the principle of the contract implied in law is applied. This principle creates an obligation which focuses on the original obligations of the parties towards each other. This is a legal obligation that seeks to provide that justice based on the relationship existing between the parties so as to avoid enabling one party to benefit from the relationship at the expense of the other. The court, being the instrument of justice, uses this principle to allow the plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred on the defendant. The other term of contract implied in law is quasi contract or constructive contract.
