... is one that is inferred from the statements or conduct of the parties. It is not a promise defined by the law, but one made by the parties, though not expressly.” (citation omitted)). Implied employment contracts do not require a factual showing of additional consideration or mutual assent to the implied term. Ordinarily, to be legally enforceable, a contract must be factually supported by an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See SCRA 1986, 13-801 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (definition of contract); Romero v. Earl, 111 N.M. 789, 791, 810 P.2d 808, 811 (1991) (stating consideration adequate to support a promise is essential to enforcement of the contract and must be bargained for by the parties); Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (1975) (<HOLDING>). —Consideration. Paxton challenges the
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 mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties holding that both the lack of mutual assent and the indefiniteness of contract terms negate the existence of a contract 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 holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties