This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"they asked HIM to read the book, then stole it"

i think you meant "they asked to read the book"

I don't see anyone on either talk page supporting the idea of merging this article with the article on quasi-contract. I strongly disagree, since they are essentially unrelated concepts. It's possible to confuse them because of the similar-sounding names, but merging them will only increase the likelihood of confusion. Lagringa 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These appear to be the same thing, but I can't find any use of the phrase "implicit contract" in a legal context. Lagringa 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, Implied-in-fact-contract should be the primary article, and "implicit contract" should redirect to it? Dontdoit 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article mentions as a side point that some jurisdictions don't allow for contracts implied-in-fact for real estate. But wouldn't most states statute of frauds preclude the sell of land, as well as several other types of contracts (marriage, contracts necessarily taking more than a year to fulfill, the sale of goods over a certain amount, and two others-executor and something about securities I believe-that my contract law class didn't cover), not being in writing or at least explicit evidence of a writing? I'm not sure if what gets considered an implied-in-fact contract would satisfy most jurisdictions' statute of frauds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.23.62 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]