It was said that a treaty implicit in the treaty should in fact contain all the elements of an explicit treaty. Such a treaty therefore depends on mutual agreement or understanding and the intention of the parties: and a meeting of the chiefs is necessary. An implied contractual contract is an agreement between the parties in all intentions and for any purpose, and it cannot be established that it exists unless a contractual status is established. Such a contract does not result from an obligation or implied legal obligation, but from facts that allow consent to be obtained; there must be a manifestation of the facts resulting, in whole or in part, from acts other than words, and a contract cannot be effectively implied if the facts are incompatible with its existence. A promise may be expressed orally or in writing in words or be inferred in whole or in part from the conduct.  Mutual agreement or consent is obviously essential to a valid contract, but the law attributes to a person an intention that corresponds to the reasonable meaning of his or her words and actions. If his words and actions, measured on a reasonable scale, manifest the intention to agree, it does not matter what the true but unspoken state of his mind may be. 17 S.J.J., contracts, § 32, p. 361; 12 Am. Jur., contracts, § 19, p. 515. A quasi-contract has nothing to do with the intentions or statements of the parties. The obligation is imposed despite and often in the frustration of its intention.
For a quasi-contract, neither promise nor effect, real or imagined, is necessary. In the case of quasi-contracts, the obligation does not arise from the consent of the parties, as in the case of treaties, explicitly or implicitly, but from the law of immutable natural justice and justice. However, the acts or acts by which the law implies the contract must be voluntary. If it arises from a case that it is the duty of the defendant to pay, the law obliges him to fulfill this obligation. Duty, which thus forms the basis of a contractual quasi-obligation, is often based on the teaching of unjustified enrichment. The law does not imply any promise against the explicit statement of the party to be deplored made at the time of the alleged obligation, unless that party is legally bound to fulfil an obligation and is not subject to such a legal obligation, unless there is a requirement of fairness and good conscience that it fulfil the duty. Now think about why people make promises. Why not just do the deed? Why talk about it first? A contract is a promise or series of promises the breach of which is remedied by law or which the law somehow recognizes as a duty.  The discussion that led to the signing of the agreement, Lucy says, lasted thirty or forty minutes during which Zehmer seemed doubtful that Lucy could find $50,000. Lucy offered to have the title reviewed, and Zehmer proposed that he sell it “completely, all over there,” and explained that all he had on the farm was three heifers. .
The law therefore judges an agreement concluded between two persons solely on the basis of the words of their intentions communicated between them. Our first main case continues to examine what it means to make a promise.