NAME-YASHI TANSUKH JAIN

CLASS-FIRST YEAR LLB(3 YEARS)

ROLL NO.-136
DIVISION-C
SUBJECT-Law of Contracts
TOPIC-Quasi Contract

-Definition 

0. "Quasi " means almost or apparently but not really or as if it were.

0. A quasi contract is a contract that exist by order of a court,not by agreement of the parties.
0. Courts create quasi-contracts to avoid the unjust enrichment of a party in a dispute over
payment for a good or service
0. Section 68 to 72 deals with "certain relations resembling those created by contract" under the
Indian contract act, 1872

-Introduction 

English law identified Quasi contractual obligations first, the framers of Indian contract act
modified it and place it in the act as "certain relations resembling those created by contracts".
Therefore the elements that are present in English Quasi contract are also found in that of the
Indian contract act.
Though the Indian contract act, 1872 does not define a Quasi contract, it calls them relation
resembling those of contracts. However, a Quasi contract may be defined as,''A transaction in
which there is no contract between the parties, the law creates a certain rights and obligations
between them which are similar to those created by contract.

"An obligation created by law for the sake of justice, specify, an obligation imposed by law on
parties because of a relationship between parties or because one of them would otherwise be
unjustly enriched.
It is not a contract, but instead is a remedy that allows the plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred
on the defendant.
These types of contracts are Quasi contract or restitution that fall in the third category of quasi-
contracts or restitution .

The procedural term "quantum meruit"has persisted and is sometimes used as a synonym for the
more general term "Quasi contract "which refers to any money claim for the redress of unjust
Enrichment.

Basically in other words, a contract made by law for reasons of equity with no statement of
consent is a Quasi contract.

Quasi contracts bring a situation which imposes obligations or duties upon the parties by law
rather than the assent given by them to the contract terms.
There are many situations in which law, as well as justice, requires that a certain person is
required to confirm an obligation , although he has not broken any contract not committed any
tort.
For example, for Quasi contract would be worthy of quoting for better understanding of quasi
contract, if a person in whose home certain goods have been left by mistake is bound to restore
them.

This shows that a person cannot entertain unjust benefits at the cost of some other person. Such
kind of obligation is generally described, for the want of better or more appropriate name, as
quasi contractual obligations. This would be better to explain it up that quasi contract consist of
contractual obligation which is entered upon not because the parties have consented to it but
because the law does not allow a person to have an unjustified benefit at the cost of another
party.

These are not contracts but these fictional agreements arise to ensure equity as it would be unfair
If a party gets an undue advantage at the cost of others. The liability exist in quasi contracts on
the basis of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 

Take for example a person in whose house certain goods have been left incidentally , so that
person is bound to restore them. There will be an obligation on the house owner to re-store the
goods safely that is imposed by law rather than any agreement between the parties. Such type of
contractual obligations is termed as Quasi contractual obligations. 

-Liability 

In general, the quasi contract doctrine is applied in disputes regarding payment of goods
delivered or services rendered. If there is no valid contract between the parties, the main question
that arises in such a situation is the liability of the defendant. As the aim of this doctrine is to
prevent unjust enrichment of one party, at the expense of the other, the damages are usually
restricted to the value of the services rendered or the cost of the material is delivered. In short,
the liability of the party who has enjoyed and just benefit is limited to the value of that benefit
only.

-Theories behind was the contracts

So far as there was not an established rules of Quasi contractual obligation the English lawyers
where content to enumerate the cases of Quasi contract for which they are provided a remedy as
too many species of"Indebitatus Assumpsit(A form of action in which the plaintiff alleges that
the defendant has undertaken at debt and has failed to satisfy it),But they evaded the odius task
of rationalisation. But as soon as the urge was felt to explore the juristic basis, the controversy
was born

The Quasi contract is covered in chapter 5 of Indian contract act, 1872, under the heading of "of
certain relations and resembling those created by the contract "
The founder of theory of unjust enrichment was Lord Mansfield Who explain such obligations
based upon the law as well as Justice  to prevent undue advantage to one person at the cost of
another.

The concept was first taken up in the case Moses v.Macferlan

The facts of the cases are as such

Jacob issued four promissory notes to Moses and Moses endorsed them too Macferlan ,
Excluding by a written agreement, his personal liability on the endorsement. Even so, Macferlan
sued Moses On the endorsement and he was held liable despite which he had excluded and,
therefore, sued to recover back his money from Macferlan.

He was allowed to do so. After stating that such money cannot be recovered where the person to
whom it is given can "retain it with a conscience"

Lord Mansfield continued

"Liability of this kind is hard to classify. Since it partly resembles liabilities under the law of tort
and the partly it resembles contract since it to only a party and not a person or individual
generally. Therefore, it comes within the ambit of an implied contract or even natural justice and
equity for the prevention of unjust enrichment "

-Position in Indian law

Chapter 5 of Indian contract act 1872 deals with "certain relations resembling to those created by
contract". It incorporates those obligations which are known as "Quasi contract" under English
law. A person is obliged to compensate another although the basis of this obligation is neither a
contract between the parties, nor any tort on the part of the person who is bound to
compensate.The basis of the obligation is that no one should have the unjust benefit at the cost of
other.

Example, if A gets unjust enrichment At the cost of B, A has an obligation to compensate B for
the same
For instance, A and B jointly owe ₹ 100 to C .A alone pays the amount to C and B ,not knowing
this fact ,pays ₹100 over again to C .C is bound to repay the amount to B.

In an action for unjust enrichment, the following essentials have to be proved. 

0. The defendant has been "enriched" by the receipt of 'benefit'.
0. The enrichment is "at the expense of the plaintiff".
0. The retention of the enrichment is "unjust".

-Similarities between quasi contracts and contracts

The result of the contract and quasi contract are similar of that of contracts. So far as the claim
for damages are concerned they are very similar to that of the contracts because section 73 of
Indian contract act, 1872 provides remedies for the breach of quasi contract as provided for the
breach of express contracts in various sections of Indian contract act, 1872. Remedies are
available under Quasi contract under the Indian contract act, 1872.

-Distinction between quasi contracts and contracts

A Quasi contract or constructive contract is an implication of law. An implied contract is

implication of fact. In the former, the contract is mere fiction, imposed in order to adapt the case
to given remedy. In the latter, the contract is a fact legitimately inferred. In one the intention is
disregarded , in the other it is a certain and enforced. In one, the duty defines the contract, in the
other, the contract defines the duty.

Any contract has 2 essential features that is agreement and obligation. Agreement arises when a
party puts forward a proposal and when that proposal is accepted by other party. Obligation
comes into picture as law imposes it over the parties but is linked to the agreement between the
parties. Therefore, a contract is a legally enforceable agreement.

Basically, contracts are expressed or implied by law. The former comes into the picture by the
conduct or words or negotiations between the parties. The contract that implied by law is not a
real contract. It would be unfair to term it a contract. It arises when law irrespective of agreement
aims at meeting the ends of justice. 

Types of quasi contract:-

0. Supply of necessities (section 68)
0. Payment by an interested person (section 69)
0. Obligation to pay for non-gratuitous act (section 70)
0. Responsibility of finder of goods (section 71)
0. Mistake or coercion (section 72)

-Supply of necessity (section 68)

Section 68 ' Claim for supply of necessary is to person and capable of contracting'

Person incapable of contracting includes-

1.Minor
2.Person of unsound mind
3.Person disqualified by law to which they are subject

Necessaries includes-
1.Things you did to the conditions of incompetent parties.
2.Articles without which a person cannot reasonably exist
0. Article is required to maintain a particular person in the state and degree in which he is.

Illustrations
0. A supplies B , a lunatic ,with necessaries suitable to his condition in life.A is entitled to be
reimbursed from B's property.
0. A Minor studying at Cambridge was supplied with clothing, including 11 waist belts . He
already had sufficient clothing with him. It was held that the waist belts when not necessary
articles and so he was not required to pay for them.

-payment by an interested person (section 69)

"reimbursement of money paid, in which he is interested"

Essentials-
0. There must be a person who is bound by law to make a certain payment.
0. The person paying must himself not be bound to pay.
0. Where he is jointly liable to pay, he cannot recover the paid amount under this section.
0. There must be another person who must be interested in such payment being made.
0. Interest must exist at the time of payment.
0. The payment must be made Bonafied for the protection of one's own interest.

-obligation to pay for non-gratuitous at (section70)

"obligation of person to pay for enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous at"

Essentials-
0. At must be lawful
0. Person must have actually supplied goods and services
0. Services should have been received without any request
0. Act must have been done non-gratuitously 
0. Person for whom the ad has been done should have enjoyed it.

Illustration-
0. A,a trademan ,leaves his goods at B's place by mistake and B treats the goods as his own .He
bounds to pay A for them.
0. A saves B's property from fire .A Is entitled to receive compensation from B If it is proved
that he did not intend to act gratuitously

-responsibility of finder of goods (section 71)

His rights-
0. Entitled to retain the goods until he receives the lawful charges or compensation for retaining
the goods and taking care of them.
0. However, he cannot sue for such compensation unless a specified report has been advertised
by the owner.
0. Entitled to possess the goods until the true owner is found
0. Can sell the goods when:-
•Commodity is perishable
• Owner cannot be found
• Owner refuses to pay compensation
• Compensation amounts to 2/3 rd of the value of commodity
His liabilities-
0. Responsible to take care of the goods as if the virus phone
0. Must with reasonable diligence trace the true owner.

-Mistake or Coercion (section 72)

"Liabilities of a person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion "

 A person to home money has been paid, or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion ,
Must repay or return it.

Illustration- 
0. A Railway company refuses to deliver certain goods to the consignee, except upon the
payment of illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to obtain the
goods. He is entitled to receive the excessive amount as paid by him.