With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for termination only for just cause is a contract implied in fact; it is based on explicit representations or conduct. An implied-in-law contract, on the other hand, is a duty imposed by law and requires no assent. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 4 cmt. b (1979) (using the term "quasi contract”). It is not really a contract at all. See Hydro Conduit Corp. v. Kemble, 110 N.M. 173, 178-79, 793 P.2d 855, 860-61 (1990) (distinguishing between contract implied in law based on obligations created by law for reasons of justice, and contract implied in fact based on parties' mutual assent as manifested by their conduct). An action for retaliatory discharge, for example, lies not as a breach of contract, but as a tort. See Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. 682, 688, 699 P.2d 613, 619 (Ct.App.1983) (<HOLDING>), rev’d in part on other grounds, 101 N.M. 687,

A: recognizing tort of wrongful discharge
B: recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act
C: recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge
D: recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge
C.