“A cause of action for breach of implied contract has the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract, except that the promise is not expressed in words but is implied from the promisor's conduct.”
Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 172, 182 (2008).
“An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1621.
A course of conduct can show an implied promise. Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 880, 889 (1995).
The elements of a breach of implied contract in connection with the submission of ideas requires:
- In an idea submission case such as this, to prevail on a cause of action for breach of implied-in-fact contract,  plaintiffs must show
- they clearly conditioned the submission of their ideas on an obligation to pay for any use of their ideas;
- the defendants, knowing this condition before the plaintiffs disclosed the ideas, voluntarily accepted the submission of the ideas; and
- the defendants found the ideas valuable and actually used them—that is, the defendants based their work substantially on the plaintiffs’ ideas, rather than on their own ideas or ideas from other sources.
Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 215 Cal. App. 4th 172, 184 (2013)
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court of California: Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange, 52 Cal. 4th 1171, 1178-79 (2011).
California 1st District: San Mateo Union High School Dist. v. County of San Mateo, 213 Cal. App. 4th 418, 439-40 (2013).
California 2d District: Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 172, 182 (2008).
California 3d District: Branson v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 24 Cal. App. 4th 327, 247 (1994).
California 4thDistrict: Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 508, 525 (2009).
California 5th District: Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World, Inc., 35 Cal App 4th 880, 888 (1995).
California 6th District: None.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 1995).
Central District: Los Feliz Ford, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, No. CV 10-6077 GAF (MANx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147370, at *35-36 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2102).
Eastern District: Center for Neuro Skills v. Blue Cross of California, No. 1:13-CV-00743-LJO-JLT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148432, at *22 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013).
Northern District: Bergman v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C-13-00741 JCS 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153173, at *48 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013); Claridge v. RockYou, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864-65 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Southern District: Gateway Rehab & Wellness Ctr., Inc. v. Aetna Health of Calif., Inc., No. SACV 13-0087-DOC (MLGx),2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53401, at *7-8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013).