An Implied Contract: What Is It?

By The Law Office of Yoel Molina.
​
A legal commitment established by statements, conduct, or other factors is known as an implied contract. Every day, little agreements called implied contracts are created. You may not even exchange words when you order a meal at a restaurant or reach across the table for a manicure, but you are still consenting to receive goods or services in exchange for money even though you are not signing a contract. If you enjoy the dinner or manicure but don't want to pay because you didn't sign a contract, is that okay? Obviously not. A judge would determine that there was an "implied contract" between you and the restaurant or manicurist and compel you to pay up in order to prevent someone from receiving something for nothing, or, as it is known in legal terms, unjust enrichment.
 
Different Implied Contract Types:
It's doubtful that the person who didn't receive payment will file a lawsuit when the amount at risk is the cost of a lunch or a manicure. However, in bigger transactions without a documented contract between the parties, the party seeking payment for the products or services is more likely to file a lawsuit. If an implied contract did exist, that party would ask the court to rule on it and, if so, to compel the other party to pay for what it got.
The law distinguishes between implicit contracts that are inferred in fact and implied in law. Based on how the agreement was reached, they are different. An implied-in-fact contract can essentially be proven by observing the behavior of the parties; if it appears that they were consciously behaving in accordance with a contract, then there is an implied-in-fact contract. In contrast, a judge's ethical ruling that one party shouldn't receive something for anything leads to an implied-in-law contract.

•           Implied-in-Fact Agreements: When two parties act in a way that suggests an agreement is in place, an implied contract is created.

Consider that you own a dog-walking business and you come across a dog owner in your neighborhood who informs you that she has been having trouble walking her dog since she damaged her ankle. The following day, you knock on her door and propose to walk her dog. The owner pays you $20 when you get back. After five days, you bring the dog back every day, and the owner gives you $20 each time. Even though the owner doesn't pay you for the additional two weeks, you continue walking the dog. The owner claims she never planned to pay you for each stroll and that she only felt you were being polite when you asked for your money.

The court would probably decide that you were legitimately entitled to be compensated for the two weeks of dog walking services if you brought an action in small claims court to recover payment for your services.

The owner's conduct and yours would be interpreted by the court as constituting an agreement to trade dog walking services for money. Because you walked the dog owner's dog and she paid you for those services for the first five days, you and the dog owner created an implied-in-fact contract. The evidence would demonstrate that the agreement was unrestricted—no one said your services had to finish after five days—and that it was open-ended.

•           Implied-in-Law Agreements: Judges use implied-in-law contracts, also known as quasi-contracts, as a last resort when one party is abusing the other party's position. This doctrine is used by courts to award compensation for services rendered, not because one party made the offer and even when neither party had any intention of entering into a contract, but rather because failing to do so would unfairly enrich the recipient of the products or services. In other words, you just cannot do it, as the late Chief Justice Warren famously put it.

Here is an illustration of how a judge could put things right by determining that an implied-in-law contract existed. Imagine you are a roofer who has been engaged by a homeowner to replace the roof on his home. Despite not being indicated in the contract, the property also has a barn. The owner is calmly watching you work as you replace the roofs on the house and the barn. But after that, the owner claims that your signed contract only covered the home and declines to pay you for the barn.

If you went to court to urge the judge to order payment for the barn, you would contend that the owner had numerous opportunities to fix your error but chose not to do so. A judge would probably concur and come to the conclusion that the owner must pay for what he obtained in order to be fair. However, if the owner had been out the entire time the roofer was working and arrived home to discover an undesired new roof on his barn, the outcome might have been different. On the grounds that the owner shouldn't be made to pay for something he didn't want and had no way to avoid, a judge might not compel the owner to pay or may impose a payment that is less than the cost of the barn roof.
 
How Are Implied Contracts Upheld in Court?
When you think an implied contract has been broken—that is, one party failed to fulfill their obligations—you can try to get the money you are owed by utilizing the same legal strategies you would if the agreement was in writing. You have three options: engage in binding arbitration, use a mediator, or bring legal action.

The obligations of each party to carry out the agreement are spelled out in a written contract. In order to prove an implied-in-fact contract, you must identify the conditions that both parties seemed to have accepted based on their actions. You'll also need to demonstrate how one party stands to unfairly benefit from the other's labor or the delivery of commodities if there is an implied-in-law contract.

An arbitrator, court, or mediator might take the following into account in the implied-in-fact contract involving the dog walker in the aforementioned example:

-Had a contract been formed between the dog walker and the dog owner as a result of the walker offering to walk the dog and the owner handing the dog over to the walker?
- Did the dog walker carry out her obligation to walk the dog?
- Was the owner's violation "material," impairing the walker's ability to exercise a crucial right (being paid)?
- Was the dog owner's refusal to pay the dog walker legal?
- How much money does the dog owner owe the dog walker if everything discussed so far works out in their favor?
 
Certain Agreements Require Writing:
It is usually better to have a formal contract that specifies the obligations of each party to the agreement when supplying goods or services in exchange for money, in case of misunderstandings later on occur. However, some agreements must always be in writing if the parties want a judge to uphold them. States utilize statute of frauds laws, which vary from state to state, to specify when contracts must be written. Written agreements are typically needed for:
​
- sales of real estate or land
- promissory notes for debts above a state-determined threshold
- contracts that take more than a year to finish, like a mortgage or a lease on a car or piece of property that lasts longer than a year
- certain sales of products beyond a certain threshold set by the state


If you have any questions about this article or similar matters, please contact our office, the Law Office of Yoel Molina, P.A., at fd@molawoffice.com or 305-548-5020, option