A commitment this significant would have had to have been explicit, not implicit

This assertion is nonsense, legally and otherwise: no court would imply such a term

So this would be a simple breach by UK

And UK needs more than ever to be serious about international agreements https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1282632952032133123">https://twitter.com/DavidDavi...

Terms can be implied into legal instruments by courts, but the tests are strict

To assert that the WA was contingent on an implied term that a FTA would be in place is nowhere close to meeting any test for implying a term

That a term should be "implied into an agreement" is not a phrase to be bandied about politically

It has an exact legal meaning, and there are exacting legal tests for such implication

And so it takes more than a mere assertion by a politician to imply a term into any agreement

The UK& #39;s post Brexit future depends on being taken seriously as a party to new international trade agreements

Demands by politicians for UK to breach negotiated agreements is irresponsible and counterproductive

Who would then trust UK to honour a trade agreement?

The EU gave an impression that there would be a FTA at the end of the transition period?

Maybe, though probably not, but this is a matter of politics

Agreeing to a FTA was an implicit term of the withdrawal agreement?

No, and that is matter of law