Strict test for contracts which was to be implied from conduct laid down by the Court of Appeal in “The Aramis”  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213, by Bingham, LJ at page 224:
Most contracts are, of course, made expressly, whether orally or in writing. But here, on the evidence, nothing was said, nothing was written. So regard must be paid to the conduct of the parties alone. The questions to be answered are, I think, twofold: (1) Whether the conduct of the bill of lading holder in presenting the bill of lading to the ship’s agent would be reasonably understood by the agents (or the shipowner) as an offer to enter into a contract on the bill of lading terms; (2) Whether the conduct of the ship’s agent in accepting the bill or the conduct of the master in agreeing to give delivery or in giving delivery would be reasonably understood by the bill of lading holder as an acceptance of his offer.
I do not think it is enough for the party seeking the implication of a contract to obtain, 'It might,' as an answer to these questions, for it would, in my view, be contrary to principle to countenance the implication of a contract from conduct if the conduct relied upon is no more consistent with an intention to contract than with an intention not to contract. It must, surely, be necessary to identify conduct referable to the contract contended for or, at the very least, conduct inconsistent with there being no contract between the parties to the effect contended for. Put another way, I think it must be fatal for the implication of a contract if the parties would or might have acted exactly as they did in the absence of contract.