In other words, different tests are applied when it comes to look for evidences regarding terms implied in fact and terms implied in law. Two tests are applied to terms implied in fact: business efficacy and officious bystander tests. Two tests are applied to terms implied in law: type of contract and necessity tests. All of these tests are completely different from each other, and they serve as guidelines at the time of finding evidence in relation to the characteristics of the terms.
Koffman and Macdonald establish the difference between both kinds of terms as follows: "Terms implied in fact are individualised gap fillers, depending on the terms and circumstances of a particular contract. Terms implied in law are in reality incidents attached to standardised contractual relationships" (Society of Lloyds v Clementson  CLC 117, Steyn LJ at 131 in Koffman and Macdonald, 5th ed.).
On the other hand, David Atkinson from Client Plus (1999) and Gillhams Solicitors & Lawyers (2005) deal in separate publications with the issue of implied terms from a general point of view. Their conclusions are similar when they explain the different elements that are necessary for a term to be considered as implied. ...