In Chandler v. Roach (1957) 156 Cal. App. 2d 435 319, the writer and producer actually got to the point of drafting written contracts; but none was signed, and the producer never paid the writer for his ideas or services although producing a series of 69 television programs "along the lines suggested by plaintiff writer." (Id. at p. 438.) plaintiff argued that he submitted the idea of a public defender series to the producer "under such circumstances that he expected the idea to be paid for if used and that the producer expected to pay for the idea if used." (Ibid.) Reversal in Chandler v. Roach was based on instructions that incorrectly required "novelty" and "concreteness' in order for there to be a contract to pay for an idea. (Chandler v. Roach, supra, 156 Cal. App. 2d 435, 439, 442-443 319 P.2d 776.) Nevertheless, the language regarding the essential elements of an implied-in-fact contract are instructive and are intertwined with the discussion of why novelty and concreteness are not necessary to the cause of action. "The assent of the producer is manifested by his acceptance of the idea or material submitted under the circumstances, a part of which is that it is reasonably understood that a professional author expects payment of the reasonable value of the idea or the material, if used, so that the conduct of the producer in accepting it implies a promise to fulfill those reasonable expectations." (Chandler v. Roach, supra, 156 Cal. App. 2d 435, 441.) Moreover, "We believe that if a producer obligates himself to pay for the disclosure of an idea, whether it is for protectible or unprotectible material, in return for a disclosure thereof he should be compelled to hold to his promise. There is nothing unreasonable in the assumption that a producer would obligate himself to pay for the disclosure of an idea which he would otherwise be legally free to use, but which in fact, he would be unable to use but for the disclosure." (Id. at pp. 441-442.)