Agreements are usually made in such a way that the company that operates the online auction site only presents sellers to potential buyers. Whether they will not remain legally binding is another question. (The constitution of a contract, instead of simply reaching an agreement, in the strict sense of the term, requires the presence of the other three elements listed above: (1) consideration, (2) for the purpose of creating a legally binding treaty and (3) contractual capacity) In certain circumstances, a tacit contract can be concluded. A contract is in fact implied when the circumstances imply that the parties have reached an agreement when they have not done so explicitly. For example, John Smith, a former lawyer, may implicitly enter into a contract by going to a doctor and being examined; If the patient refuses to pay after the examination, the patient has breached a truly implied contract. A contract that is implicit in the law is also called a quasi-contract, since it is not, in reality, a contract; Rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unduly enriched if it were not required to compensate the other. Quantum meriduit claims are an example of this. While the model of an offer that reflects acceptance makes sense to analyze almost all agreements, it is not appropriate in some cases. In The Satanita,[69] the rules of a yacht race provided that sailors had to pay, beyond the limits set by law, for all damage caused to other boats. The Court of Appeal decided that there was a payment contract resulting from the rules of competition between the owner of satanita and the owner of Valkyrie II, which it sank, although there was no clear offer that results in a clear acceptance between the parties at any time. Along with a number of other criticisms,[70] Lord Denning MR suggested, in a number of cases, that English law renounce its rigid link in order to offer a broader rule and to assume that the parties had to agree on the essence of the essential points of the treaty. In Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd,[71] this would have meant that, in a „form fight“, two parties were interpreted to have a substantial agreement on the buyer`s standard terms and the exclusion of a price revision clause, although the other members of the tribunal had the same view in the ordinary analysis. In Gibson v Manchester CC,[72] he reportedly reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords by allowing Mr Gibson to buy his house from the Council, whereas the Council`s letter stated that it „should not be regarded as a fixed offer“.
This approach could give a court greater discretion to do what seems appropriate at this stage, without being tied to what the parties might intend to have subjectively, particularly where those intentions are manifestly contradictory. As a general rule, a contract is concluded in the event that one person makes an offer and another person accepts it by communizing his vote or executing the terms of the offer. If the conditions are secure and the parties may consider, because of their conduct, that they intend to impose the conditions, the agreement is generally applicable. . . .