MBE Rules · Contracts
Implied Contracts
Implied-in-fact vs. implied-in-law
The rule
Implied-in-fact contracts are true agreements inferred from conduct; implied-in-law (quasi) contracts are restitutionary fictions imposed to prevent unjust enrichment regardless of intent.
In plain English
Implied contracts are agreements that aren't written or spoken but are understood through the actions of the parties involved. There are two types: implied-in-fact contracts, which arise from the behavior of the parties, and implied-in-law contracts, which are created by law to prevent one party from being unfairly enriched at the expense of another.
Worked example
A homeowner hires a contractor to paint their house, and the contractor begins the work without a formal agreement. The homeowner pays the contractor after the job is completed, leading to an implied-in-fact contract based on their conduct. The contractor is entitled to payment for the work done.
Memory hook
Implied contracts: agreements from actions, not words.
The trap
Exams may confuse students by presenting scenarios where the parties did not explicitly agree, leading them to overlook the implications of their conduct. Students might mistakenly think a formal contract is necessary for enforcement.
How examiners test it
Questions often present fact patterns where parties interact without a formal agreement, testing the candidate's ability to identify implied contracts based on conduct or the need for restitution.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.