elements of the agree- merit.’” Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. 47 Cal.3d 654, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373, 386 (1988) (quoting Goetz & Scott, The Limits of Expanded Choice: An Analysis of the Interactions Between Express and Implied Contract Terms 73 Cal. L.Rev. 261, 273-276 (1985)). The modern view is that, “[j]ust as assent may be manifested by words or other conduct, sometimes including silence, so intention to make a promise may be manifested in language or by implication from other circumstances.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 4 cmt. a (1981). Whether the parties acted in a manner sufficient to create implied contractual terms is a question of fact generally precluding summary judgment. See Reynolds v. Palnut Co., 330 N.J.Super. 162, 171-72, 748 A.2d 1216 (App.Div.2000) (<HOLDING>). As the court noted in Giudice v. Drew Chem.
holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment holding summary dismissal of breach of implied employment contract claim inappropriate where factual issue over existence of oral policy holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract