Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
For an implied-in-fact contract one must show: that he or she prepared the work; that he or she disclosed the work to the offeree for sale; under all circumstances attending disclosure it can be concluded that the offeree voluntarily accepted the disclosure knowing the conditions on which it was tendered (i.e., the offeree must have the opportunity to reject the attempted disclosure if the conditions were unacceptable); and the reasonable value of the work.
Edgar C. Faris, the developer of an idea for a television sports quiz show, sued Richard Enberg,a television sports announcer, and others in two separate actions for appropriating his idea and producing a sports quiz show based on it. Faris’ first complaint alleged causes of action based on an express contract, an implied contract, and breach of confidence. In his second complaint, Faris alleged causes of action for plagiarism and implied contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal as to the cause of action for plagiarism and implied-in-law contract, but reversed the dismissal of the cause of action for implied-in-fact contract. The Court of Appeals ruled that Faris’ idea concerning a sports quiz show was not novel and concrete and thus not subject to copyright protection, and sustained dismissal of Faris’ cause of action for infringement. Thereafter, defendant's motion for summary judgment on both cases was granted.
Was there a triable issue of fact on the implied-in-fact contract claim?
The court held that there was no triable issue of fact on the implied-in-fact contract claim, as there was no evidence that Faris expected to receive compensation. Faris did not intend to sell the idea, but intended to produce it himself. As an obligation to pay could not be inferred from plaintiff's conduct, there was no implied-in-fact contract. Faris failed to state claim for breach of confidence, as neither Faris nor Enberg believed that Faris’ disclosure of the idea was made in confidence and no special facts existed from which to infer a confidential relationship. Thus, the court affirmed.