expectation” that “Lex- mark would not use or develop BDT’s technology without the consent and approval of BDT and that Lexmark would conclude a joint d iffers from an express contract only “in the character and quantum of proof necessary to establish them.” Kellum, 21 S.W.2d at 463. Specifically: An express contract is one wherein all the terms and conditions between the parties are set forth while in an implied contract some one or more of the terms or conditions are implied from the conduct of the parties. The former speaks for itself, while a contract implied in fact is one inferred from the circumstances or acts of the parties. Dorton v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., 303 Ky. 279, 281, 197 S.W.2d 274 (1946). See also, e.g., Perkins v. Daugherty, 722 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Ky.App.1987)(<HOLDING>)(citing Thompson v. Hunter’s Ex’r, 269 S.W.2d
holding that a contract impliedinfact is shown by evidence of facts and circumstances from which a meeting of minds concerning the mutual promises may be reasonably deduced holding that in absence of a jurat the fact that the statement was sworn to may be shown by other evidence holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred holding that a probable cause determination should consider the facts and circumstances known to the officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances