The signed contract is important, but it may not be the only source of obligations.
Executives often prefer a clean rule: if it is not written in the agreement, it is not part of the deal. The Week 3 material shows why that assumption can be incomplete.
It introduces implied terms arising from past dealings, trade usage or custom, business efficacy and statute. The precise modern legal tests vary and require current verification, but the strategic implication is immediate: commercial relationships operate within a wider system of law, history and practice.
The Strategic Context
A contract cannot anticipate every possible circumstance. Businesses also operate within established industries where certain practices are so embedded that parties may act as though they form part of the relationship.
The Week 3 source explains four broad pathways through which terms may be implied: past dealings between the same parties; recognised trade custom or usage; terms necessary to make the bargain workable; and statutory requirements.
For program leaders, this means contractual risk cannot be assessed by reading only the express clauses.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first mistake is assuming prior behaviour has no future effect. Repeated dealings can create expectations and, in some circumstances, may contribute to terms being implied.
The second is assuming “industry standard” automatically means legally binding. The source stresses that trade custom must be sufficiently established and cannot simply contradict an express term.
The third is using business efficacy as a licence to fill gaps with whatever seems reasonable. The source describes a much more constrained approach and cites BP Refinery as an Australian reference point for implication of terms.
The fourth is forgetting statute. Consumer or sale-of-goods legislation may impose rights and obligations regardless of what commercial drafting says. The Week 3 source uses older statutory terminology here, so current Australian Consumer Law treatment must be independently verified. [FACT CHECK REQUIRED]
Reframing the Issue
Implied terms are a reminder that contracts live inside systems.
Those systems include law, industry practice, organisational history, established methods of working and commercial necessity.
The strategic response is not to attempt impossibly exhaustive drafting. It is to identify where the organisation is relying on assumptions that have not been made explicit.
Strategic Analysis: History Can Become Part of the Operating Model
The Week 3 source uses prior dealings to explain how consistent historical practice can matter. This has strong operational relevance.
Suppose a supplier has accepted urgent orders for years under a consistent process not clearly described in the master agreement. A new commercial manager later insists that the historical process has no contractual significance. The legal answer will depend on facts and doctrine, but the governance failure is already visible: the operating model diverged from the written contract.
Trade custom creates a similar issue. Project teams often say, “That is how the industry works.” Sometimes the assumption is justified. Sometimes it is only local habit or organisational folklore.
The source's treatment of Con-Stan Industries is useful because it emphasises that custom must be well known and accepted and cannot simply contradict an express term. This provides a strong executive caution: do not use industry custom as an excuse for contractual ambiguity.
Business efficacy addresses a different problem. The source explains that courts may imply a term where necessary to make the contract workable, but does not present this as a broad power to improve bad bargains.
Decision Framework
Use a contract-gap assessment.
- What is silent? Identify important operational matters the contract does not expressly address.
- What is assumed? List practices both parties appear to treat as normal.
- What is historical? Review prior dealings that could influence expectations.
- What is industry-based? Separate genuinely established trade practice from internal custom.
- What is statutory? Identify legal obligations that may apply regardless of drafting.
- What should be made express? If an issue is material to value, safety, schedule, quality or liability, do not rely casually on implication.
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action: during contract handover, ask operational teams what they believe the contract “obviously means”. Those assumptions are exactly where hidden exposure can sit.
Medium-term capability: integrate legal, procurement and operations teams in periodic contract health reviews. Compare actual operating practice with express terms.
Long-term strategic positioning: build standard contracts from recurring operating reality. If the organisation repeatedly relies on the same unwritten process, decide whether it should become an express term.
When Operational Practice Outgrows the Contract
Long-running relationships often evolve faster than their contracts.
Teams develop workarounds. Ordering patterns change. Technology changes. Service windows expand. Informal escalation paths become routine. Over time, the operating relationship may look very different from the document originally signed.
This creates two risks. First, the parties may form different expectations about what is required. Second, management may price and resource the relationship based on current practice while legal rights remain tied to older wording.
Hypothetical example: A logistics provider has, for several years, accepted same-day urgent orders even though the master contract only specifies next-day service. The customer eventually begins designing its production system around same-day support. A change in the supplier's management leads it to stop providing the service. Whether prior dealings create any legal effect requires factual and legal analysis, but the enterprise lesson is clear: a strategically important operating practice should not remain invisible to the contract.
Contract Health as a Governance Process
A useful contract-health review compares four layers:
- Express contract: what the document says.
- Actual practice: what the parties consistently do.
- Business dependency: which practices the organisation now relies upon.
- Legal environment: what current law may imply or prohibit.
Where these layers diverge, leadership should decide whether to amend the contract, redesign operations or formally accept the risk.
This is especially important for framework agreements that remain in place for many years. The longer the relationship, the greater the chance that unwritten practice becomes operationally significant.
Signals to Monitor
Look for teams relying on “we have always done it this way”, suppliers claiming an industry practice that is not documented, contracts that remain unchanged while operational processes evolve, repeated exceptions becoming routine, and statutory terminology copied from old templates without review.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Where does our actual operating relationship differ from the written contract?
- Which recurring practices are important enough to be made express?
- Are we relying on claimed industry custom without evidence?
- When were standard terms last reviewed against current legislation?
- Could historical concessions now be treated as normal expectations?
Closing Perspective
The contract you sign is only one layer of the commercial system.
Strong governance requires leaders to understand the wider environment in which that contract operates and to make critical assumptions explicit before they become disputes.
Related article: Terms or Talk? Why Pre-Contract Statements Can Change Commercial Exposure
Related article: Which Contract Terms Are Truly Critical? Designing Conditions, Warranties and Remedies Around Enterprise Risk
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.