the rule in The Moorcock was given some precision in Shirlaw v Southern Foundries [1939] 2 KB 206 CA, by MacKinnon LJ who stated: Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if while the parties were making their bargain an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common, 'Oh, of course'. The test has been dubbed 'the officious bystander test' and an example of its use can be seen in Gardner v Coutts & Co [1968] 1 WLR 173. Both the 'business efficacy' test, and the 'officious bystander' test attempt to identify what the parties ultimately intended, an idea that was later affirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Belize and Others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another [2009] 1 WLR 1988. When implying terms in fact, one must ask what the reasonable person would understand the contract to mean rather than enquiring as to the subjective intentions of the parties.