The expression of meaning can be expressed not only explicitly, but also implicitly. The provision of Article 140 of the Civil Code of China provides a legal basis for determining the expression of silent intention through the use of transaction customs, and clarifies that “silence” is an implicit form of inaction with four characteristics: drafting, commercial, reservation, and trustworthiness. The author searched for 940 relevant judicial documents on “Peking University Treasure” and provided in-depth interpretation and analysis of typical cases among them. Although the law has clear provisions and theoretical foundations for legislation and judiciary, there is a lack of further applicable rules, and there are significant differences in the judgment views of different courts in similar cases in different regions. The reason why the problem of “different judgments in the same case” often arises is due to the failure to distinguish between “silence” and “implication”, the failure to grasp the limitations of the application of “silence”, the failure to distinguish between the differences in the expression of “silence” between civil and commercial subjects, and the insufficient completeness of relevant legislative norms. In response to this, the author proposes five strategies. Firstly, in civil justice, the use of transactional customs to determine the expression of silence should first distinguish between “silence” and “implication”; Secondly, in commercial disputes, the term “silence" should be recognized based on the 'transaction customs between the parties'; Thirdly, in narrow civil legal disputes, “silence” cannot be identified by “the transaction habits between the parties”; Fourthly, in economic legal disputes, the customary meaning of “no objection” should be distinguished between civil and commercial subjects; Fifth, through legislation or judicial interpretation, improve the detailed rules for determining the expression of silent intention in civil justice using the transaction habits between parties.