Which description best defines an implied-in-fact contract?

Which description best defines an implied-in-fact contract?

• A. A contract formed by conduct rather than explicit words
• B. A contract formed solely by a written document
• C. A contract that is illegal and void
• D. A contract that requires notarization

Answer: (A)

Implied-in-fact contracts are created by conduct rather than explicit words. When one party provides services or goods and the other accepts them with an understanding that payment will be made, there’s an agreement even though no spoken or written promise exists. The terms are inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ actions, so the contract is enforceable to prevent unjust enrichment. This contrasts with a contract formed solely by a written document or explicit promises, and it doesn’t hinge on notarization or legality.

Implied-in-fact contracts are created by conduct rather than explicit words. When one party provides services or goods and the other accepts them with an understanding that payment will be made, there’s an agreement even though no spoken or written promise exists. The terms are inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ actions, so the contract is enforceable to prevent unjust enrichment. This contrasts with a contract formed solely by a written document or explicit promises, and it doesn’t hinge on notarization or legality.