[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. A valid contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant;
2. Some or all of the contract terms were inferred from the parties’ conduct, not written;
3. Defendant materially breached the contract; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. A valid contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant;
2. Some or all of the contract terms were inferred from the parties’ conduct, not written;
3. Defendant materially breached the contract; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

An implied-in-fact contract derives the assent of the parties not from words, but from other circumstances including course of dealing or usage of trade. See McMillan v. Shively, 23 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

First District: Sheppard v. M & R Plumbing, Inc., 82 So.3d 950, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Second District: Kenf, LLC v. Jabez Restorations, Inc., 303 So.3d 229, 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). 

Third District: Tabraue v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 272 So.3d 468, 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Duty Free World, Inc. v. Miami Perfume Junction, Inc., 253 So.3d 689, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Fourth District: F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Assocs. LLC v. B&B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Gem Broad., Inc. v. Minker, 763 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Fifth District: Baron v. Osman, 39 So.3d 449, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015).

Southern District: N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Glob. Excel Mgmt., Inc., No. 24-61242-CIV, 2025 WL 395753, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2025); Neurosurgical Consultants of S. Fla., LLC v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 2023 WL 1826860, *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2023); Orthopaedic Care Specialists, P.L. v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., 2021 WL 8154530, *4 (S.D. Fla. November 15, 2021); Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. United Health Grp. Inc., 2021 WL 4651504, *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2021).

Middle District: US Thrillrides, LLC v. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est., 767 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2025); Sheedy v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No: 6:16-cv-1893-Orl-31GJK, 2020 WL 70976, at *4 (M.D. Fla. January 7, 2020); U.S. ex rel. Silva v. VICI Mktg., LLC, 361 F.Supp.3d 1245, 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2019); Shaffer v. Bank of NY Mellon, No. 8:17-cv-565-T-33AAS, 2017 WL 3065222, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2017).

Northern District: Stout v. Med-Trans Corp., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1297 (N.D. Fla. 2018); Walton Constr. Co., LLC v. Corus Bank, No. 4:10–CV–137–SPM–WCS., 2011 WL 2938366, at *4 (N.D. Fla. July 21, 2011).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Implied in Fact Contract

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Express contract: Where an express contract exists the court will not infer an implied-in-fact contract, except where the express contract cannot be proven. See Sheedy v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No: 6:16-cv-1893-Orl-31GJK, 2020 WL 70976, at *4 (M.D. Fla. January 7, 2020); Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).“The Agreement cannot form the basis of the implied-in-fact contract between [the parties] because “the existence of an express contract precludes the existence of an implied contract dealing with the same subject, unless the implied contract is entirely unrelated to the express contract.” Corporate Real Estate Sol., LLC v. Boyd Watterson Asset Mgmt. LLC, 2022 WL 1184573, *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2022) (citing Atlas Corp. v. United States, 895 F.2d 745, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); US Thrillrides, LLC v. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est., 767 F. Supp. 3d 1331, at 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2025).

(4) Government party: Where the government is a party to the contract, the agent whose conduct Plaintiff relied upon must have had actual authority to contract on the government’s behalf. See Strickland v. U.S., 382 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

(5) Family Member: In contrast to the general rule, when services are provided for a family member or relative living in the same house there is no presumption of payment for the services rendered. See McLane v. Musick, 792 So. 2d 702, 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

(6) Required Emergency Medical Treatment: Defendant required by law to provide emergency medical treatment to Plaintiff regardless of Plaintiff's insurance coverage has not formed a contract implied in fact due to a lack of consideration under the preexisting duty doctrine. See N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Glob. Excel Mgmt., Inc., No. 24-61242-CIV, 2025 WL 395753, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2025)(citing Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., No. 21-62403-CIV, 2022 WL 19037216, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2022)).

(7) Implied-in-Law Contract Compared: “A contract implied in fact is an enforceable contract ‘that is inferred in whole or in part from the parties’ conduct, not solely from their words.’ A contract implied in law is ‘an obligation created by the law without regard to the parties’ expression of assent by their words or conduct.’ In short, a contract implied in law does not require an agreement, however, a contract implied in fact does. A quasi contract is a contract implied in law since it does not require an agreement.” Cds & Assocs. of the Palm Beaches v. 1711 Donna Rd. Assocs., 743 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Commerce P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity Contr. Co., 695 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Magwood v. Tate, 835 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

[/MM_Access_Decision]