Opinion ID: 3013538
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Implied-In-Fact Contract Has The Same Legal

Text: Consequences As An Express Contract. In fact there are no distinctions in legal effect, at least in the context of this case, when a promise is implied rather than express. See Duffy v. Charles Schwab & Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 802, 816-17 (D.N.J. 2001) (“The only difference between an implied-in-fact contract and an express contract is that the parties’ agreement has been manifested by conduct instead of words.”). No rationale exists to conclude that definiteness as to the essential terms of a contract could be an exception from this fundamental principle. We therefore determine if in any “idea submission case,” whether predicated on an express or implied contract, definiteness is a requirement to create an enforceable contract. 12