Which term describes an obligation that is not express but that the parties presumably intended, either by tacit understanding or by the assumption that it existed?

• A. Implied-in-law contract
• B. Void contract
• C. Offer
• D. Implied-in-fact contract

Answer: (D)

This question tests how contracts can be formed by conduct rather than words. An obligation that isn’t stated but is presumed from how the parties act or from a tacit understanding is an implied-in-fact contract. The key idea is mutual assent inferred from circumstances—the parties behave as if they have consented to terms, even though nothing was written or spoken. For example, if you receive a service you reasonably expect to pay for and do pay, the law treats that as an implied-in-fact contract because the conduct created an agreement in effect.

This differs from an implied-in-law contract (quasi-contract), which the court creates to prevent unjust enrichment when one party benefits at another’s expense, regardless of the parties’ intent to contract. A void contract, by contrast, is not enforceable from the start, and an offer is merely a proposal that requires acceptance to form a contract.