we must examine the complaint’s allegations to determine whether facts have been sufficiently plead to support the various elements of this tort. a. The Existence of an Implied Contract of Confidentiality A contract implied in fact is one that “arise[s] under circumstances which show mutual intent or assent to contract.” Angus v. City of Jackson, 968 S.W.2d 804, 808 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). Such a contract or agreement “may result as a legal inference from the facts and circumstances of the case,” Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier, 219 Tenn. 45, 58, 407 S.W.2d 150, 154 (1966), but to be enforceable, the implied contract must nevertheless be supported by mutual assent, consideration, and lawful purpose. See Johnson v. Central Nat’l Ins. Co., 210 Tenn. 24, 34-35, 356 S.W.2d 277, 281 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Lay v. Fairfield Dev., 929 S.W.2d 352, 356
holding that both the lack of mutual assent and the indefiniteness of contract terms negate the existence of a contract holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties recognizing that an implied contract must result from a meeting of the minds of the parties in mutual assent to the terms and must be based upon a sufficient consideration free from fraud or undue influence not against public policy and sufficiently definite to be enforced holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous holding that the one thing without which a contract cannot be made  is the assent of the parties to the agreement the meeting of the minds upon a definite proposition