Introduction

Let's assume a hypothetical situation where you ordered pizza from a nearby pizza shop and the
pizza shop agrees to deliver it to your residence for a certain amount, now there is a contract
between you and the pizza shop. However, the shop erroneously delivers the pizza at your
neighbor's house. Your neighbor consumes it assuming that his sibling might have ordered.

Now, although there was no contract between you and your neighbor, but this will be treated as a
quasi-contract.

The word "quasi” means pseudo/purported. Thus, quasi-contract is a pseudo-contract or purported-

contract.

The word "quasi” means pseudo/purported. Thus, quasi-contract is a pseudo-contract or purported-

contract. Quasi-contract implies obligations of parties in absence of an agreement. The rationale
behind quasi-contracts is:

          1. Theory of Unjust Enrichment

The legal maxim of Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura[1], which translates to ‘No one may
gain from the loss (sacrifice) of another.’ It was laid out by Lord Mansfield in Moses v. Macferon[2].  

          2. Theory of implied-in-fact contract

This theory supports that the basis of quasi-contracts is an implied, notional or fictional contract.
Where the circumstances of a case do not lead to interference of this kind or where such an
interference would be against the law, no liability will arise.  
Even though Quasi-Contract has not been defined under the Indian Contract Act,1872 but Section
68-72(chapter V) deals with "certain relations resembling those created by contract". When one
person has done something for another or paid money on his behalf to the third party the court
comes forward on the ground of equity and saying that a person who takes benefit must make
compensation to the person from whom he has taken the benefit. This type of contract is not
created by willingness but by the obligation of the court.

The basis is that no one should have an unjust benefit at the cost of the other, which suggests that
no man ought to develop rich out of someone else's misfortune. Quasi-contract implies that no
individual should acquire unfairly or get unfairly advanced at the expense of another person's
misfortune.

The following essential have to be proved for action against unjust enrichment: -

1) Right to sum of money {the person who suffers loss is entitled to receive money (unjust
enrichment)}.
2) The right is enforced by law and it is not by the willingness of parties.
3) The right is against a specific person {right in rem}.

An action for a quasi-contract is similar to contractual contract where action is taken against a
particular person who received unjust enrichment.

The Indian Contract Act provides 5 circumstances for quasi-contractual obligations: -

1) Necessaries supplied to an incompetent person (Section 68)

2) Payment made by an interested person (Section 69)
3) Obligation to pay for non-gratuitous act (Section 70)
4) Obligation of finder of goods (Section 71)
 5) Liability of a person who is benefitted by mistake or coercion (Section 72)

1.  Necessaries supplied to an incompetent person (Section 68)

If a person supplies bare necessities of life (for example food, shelter, cloth, etc.) to a person, who is
incompetent to contract (for example, minor or lunatic), or to anyone whom such incompetent
person is legally bound to support (for lunatic's children or wife), the person providing such bare
necessities is entitled to recover the amount from the property of such incompetent person.
Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, illustrates the same principle. Illustration A and B of the
section illustrate that a person providing necessaries to a lunatic person or even to his wife and
children, the person providing the necessities is entitled to be reimbursed out of the estate of the
lunatic person. 
An agreement with any person incompetent to contract is void ab initio. No action can be brought
against an incompetent person for the necessities supplied, but legally the amount could be
recovered from the estate of such person.
In Nash v. Inman[4], a tailor supplied 13 waistcoats and some other things to an undergraduate
student, who was a minor. Later, when he was asked to pay for the goods supplied he refused. The
tailor brought this suit against him for recovery of the price of goods supplied.
It was held that “Necessaries means goods or services suitable to the condition in life of minor, or
any other person incapable of forming a contract for himself, and as to his actual requirements at
the time of sale and delivery”
 This implies that not just the product supplied should be reasonable and important to the condition
in the existence of a minor(here), but also be required by the minor. The onus to prove that the
thing agreed upon was a necessity lies on the plaintiff.