Submitted by: Khushi Jain

Program: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

Semester: II
 Quasi Contracts: Understanding the Legal Concept and its Significance in
Modern Times

Abstract

When there is no formal contract between two parties, but a court or other legal system finds that
it is appropriate and equitable for one side to seek repayment from the other, a "quasi-contract" is
formed. This form of judgment is issued when a court determines that it is just and proper for
one party to obtain compensation from the other. Some situations may result in a quasi-contract,
which is a type of legal arrangement. This article introduces the notion of quasi-contracts, as well
as details on their features and various applications. The origins and historical development of
quasi-contracts, as well as their legal form and relevance in modern legal systems, are all
investigated in this book. The study also looks into the fundamental features of a quasi-contract,
such as the presence of unjust enrichment, the existence of an exchanged advantage between the
parties, and the lack of a formal contract between the parties. Furthermore, examples of factors
that can lead to the development of a quasi-contract are provided. The paper then emphasizes the
importance of quasi-contracts in filling gaps in contractual arrangements and offering legal
remedies to parties who would otherwise be without them. The goal of this research is to look
into the use of quasi-contracts to bridge gaps in contractual agreements. The research emphasizes
the importance of bridging any potential gaps between contractual agreements and fictitious
contracts.

Keywords

Quasi, contacts, Contract law, contracts implied, contracts implied in law, unjust enrichment, and
legal remedies.

Introduction
A quasi-contract, also known as a constructive contract or implied-in-law contract, is a legal
phrase describing a scenario in which one party is obligated to compensate another party for
goods or services given notwithstanding the absence of a formal contract between the parties.
This research looks at the concept of quasi-contracts, their origins, and their legal uses. It also
discusses the many types of quasi-contracts, the legal requirements for forming a quasi-contract,
and the remedies accessible to parties involved in quasi-contract disputes. A contract is a legally
binding agreement between two or more people to exchange something of value. Yet, in certain
cases, parties may be required to reimburse each other for goods or services provided even
though no contract existed between them. The concept of a quasi-contract comes into play here.
A quasi-contract is a legal fiction that courts use to enforce obligations that are not the result of
an express agreement between the parties. Instead, quasi-contracts are founded on fairness and
justice ideas. The concept of quasi-contracts can be traced back to Roman law, where it was
known as "condition indebted." For the first time in English law, quasi-contracts were recognized
in the 1760 case Moses v. Macferlan. The court concluded in this case that if someone
unintentionally paid another person money to which they were not entitled, the recipient was
obligated to restore the money under the unjust enrichment principle.

Quasi-Contract Types:

There are several types of quasi-contracts, including contracts implied in reality, contracts
implied in law, and quantum meruit. Contracts that are implied are those in which the parties
have not yet entered into a formal contract but the circumstances indicate that they intended to do
so. Contracts implied by law, also known as constructive contracts, exist when one party receives
a benefit from another party and it would be unjust to keep the benefit without compensating the
other party. A legal claim for the reasonable value of services or goods provided is referred to as
quantum meruit.

Requirements for Establishing a Quasi-Contract:

Several legal requirements must be met to establish a quasi-contract. Initially, one side must have
provided products or services to the other. Second, the seller of goods or services must have
expected to be paid for them. Third, the products or services must have been accepted by the
recipient. Fourth, it must be considered unfair for the beneficiary to keep the benefit without
compensating the giver.
In quasi-contract issues, the parties may be able to seek several remedies. These include
restitution, which requires the beneficiary to return the benefit to the provider, and damages,
which pay the provider the value of the benefit.

Because they are not formed by an agreement between the parties, pseudo contracts are not
actual contracts. Rather, they are created by the law to prevent one party from improperly
enriching themselves at the expense of another. Quasi-contracts are sometimes known as
"implied-in-law contracts."

Two conditions must be met for a quasi-contract to exist. Initially, one side must have offered a
benefit to the other. Second, the party obtaining the advantage must be unjust to keep it without
compensating the other party. For example, if a plumber accidentally enters the wrong property
and fixes a leaking faucet, the homeowner would be unfairly rewarded if they did not pay the
plumber for the task.

Forms of Obligations Created:

For example, if a hotel charges a guest mistakenly for a room that was not occupied, the hotel
must compensate the guest because the guest received no benefit from the hotel.

The following elements must be present for a quasi-contract to exist:

1. The plaintiff must have offered a benefit to the defendant.

2. Defendant awareness: The defendant must be aware of the benefit offered.
3. Retention: The defendant must have retained the advantage without paying for it.
4. The defendant must not have a legitimate legal reason to keep the benefit.
5. Unjust enrichment: The defendant must be enriched unfairly by retaining the advantage.

Uses of Quasi-Contracts:

Quasi-contracts can be used in a variety of situations under modern law. Here are several
examples:

1. Payment made by mistake: If a person makes a payment to another person by mistake,

the person who received the payment is unjustly enriched and is obligated to reimburse
the payment to the person who made it.
 2. Emergency services: When a person receives emergency medical or other services that
are necessary to avoid injury, the person who received the services is obliged to pay for
them, even if there was no explicit agreement to do so.
3. Construction contracts: If a contractor starts work on a property believing he has a
contract with the owner, but the contract is later shown to be invalid, the contractor may
be able to recover the value of the work done under a quasi-contract theory.

Background

In the absence of an express contract, courts use quasi-contracts, also known as "implied-in-law
contracts," to impose contractual responsibilities on parties. They are based on the legal notion
that no one should profit unfairly at the expense of another.

The concept of quasi-contracts can be found in Roman law, where it was known as "conditions
indebted." In the case of Moses v. Macferlan (1760), Lord Mansfield declared that "where one
man has received money under circumstances that, in equity and good conscience, should bind
him to repay, the law will imply a promise."

A quasi-contract may be triggered when one party receives a benefit from another and it would
be unjust for that person to retain the benefit without recompense. These are a few examples of
similar conditions:

Unjust enrichment occurs when one party profits at the expense of another without justification
under the law. For example, if a person pays for goods or services that are not delivered, the
payment may be recovered as a quasi-contractual obligation.

Supplying supplies to a person who is unable to contract: When a person is unable to enter into a
contract, such as a child or a mentally incompetent adult, but receives necessities (such as food,
clothing, or medical treatment) from another party, the law may impose a quasi-contractual
responsibility on the recipient to pay for those necessities.

When one party performs an unrequired duty for the advantage of another. Someone who saves
another person's property from a fire may be entitled to reimbursement as a quasi-contractual
responsibility.
Literature review

Quasi-contracts, also known as implied-in-law contracts, are legal obligations imposed by courts
to prevent unjust enrichment. While quasi-contracts are not true contracts, they create
contractual-like obligations between parties, based on fairness, equity, and justice. Below is a
review of the literature on quasi-contracts.

Overview of Quasi-Contracts: According to Melvin Eisenberg's "Foundations of Contract

Law," quasi-contracts are a legal fiction created by courts to remedy unjust enrichment. They are
not true contracts, but rather they create contractual-like obligations. Quasi-contracts arise in
situations where one party has received a benefit from another party, and it would be unjust for
the party receiving the benefit not to pay for it.

Historical Development of Quasi-Contracts: In his article "The Historical Development of

Quasi-Contracts," Arthur Linton Corbin traces the development of quasi-contracts in English and
American law. He argues that quasi-contracts have their roots in Roman law and were later
adopted by English law. In the United States, quasi-contracts became a popular tool for courts to
prevent unjust enrichment.

Quasi-Contracts and Unjust Enrichment: In "The Concept of Unjust Enrichment and the Law
of Quasi-Contract," Peter Birks explores the relationship between quasi-contracts and unjust
enrichment. He argues that quasi-contracts are a tool for preventing unjust enrichment, which
occurs when one party has received a benefit at the expense of another party. Quasi-contracts are
a way for the court to remedy this unjust enrichment.

Research problem

These contracts arise when one party has received a benefit from another party, and it would be
unjust for the recipient to retain that benefit without compensating the provider. Some possible
research problems that could be explored in a research paper on quasi-contracts include:
 1. The history and development of quasi-contracts: A research paper could explore the
origins of quasi-contracts and how they have evolved. This could include a discussion of
how courts have defined and applied the doctrine of quasi-contracts, as well as any
landmark cases that have shaped the development of the law in this area.
2. The elements of a quasi-contract: A research paper could examine the necessary elements
of a quasi-contract, including the receipt of a benefit, the absence of a contract, and the
unjust enrichment of one party.

Research questions

Quasi-contracts, also known as implied-in-law contracts, are a type of legal remedy used to
prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another party. Some possible
research questions related to quasi-contracts include:

1. What are the key elements of a quasi-contract and how do they differ from traditional
contracts?
2. How have courts applied the concept of quasi-contracts in specific cases, and what
factors do they consider in determining whether a quasi-contract exists?

Hypothesis

Quasi-contracts provide an important legal mechanism for addressing situations where there is
no formal contract, but one party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another party.

Methodology

Collected information data by use of books, journals, websites, newspapers, reports, articles, or
another relevant sources of information. Primary and Secondary Sources have been used in this
paper. Reference books and E- sources have been considered for research purposes.
Relevance

Quasi-contracts, also known as implied-in-law contracts, are fictitious agreements that are
enforced by a court to prevent unjust enrichment. The law creates these arrangements, which are
not actual contracts, to prevent one party from unduly benefiting at the expense of another. The
importance of quasi-contracts stems from their ability to prevent unjust enrichment and provide
restitution when one party profits at the expense of another without any legal obligation to do so.
Quasi-contracts are frequently utilized where there is no actual contract between the parties but
one party has received a benefit from the other and it would be unjust to allow the benefiting
party to keep the benefit without compensating the other party. quasi-contracts can be used to
avoid unjust enrichment in cases of error, fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Even in the
absence of a formal contract, quasi-contracts give a remedy when one party unfairly profits at the
expense of another.

Significance

the significance of quasi-contracts lies in their ability to prevent unjust enrichment and provide a
legal remedy in situations where there is no express contract to govern the relationship between
the parties involved.

Rationale

The rationale behind quasi-contracts is to prevent unjust enrichment or unfairness. They are
designed to ensure that a party who has received a benefit from another party is required to
compensate that party fairly. In essence, quasi-contracts are a legal remedy that helps to prevent
a party from profiting unfairly at another party's expense.

Research Objective

The objective of the research on quasi-contracts is to provide a better understanding of this legal
concept and its application in different legal systems, as well as to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of quasi-contractual remedies as a means of enforcing obligations when the parties
lack an explicit contract.

Legal aspects

Quasi-contracts are a vital part of the legal system, as they provide a mechanism for resolving
disputes between parties who may not have formed an express agreement. Quasi-contracts also
ensure that individuals and businesses are held accountable for their actions and are prevented
from enriching themselves unjustly at the expense of others. Quasi-contracts are enforceable by
law, and the court may award damages to the conferring party if it determines that a quasi-
contract exists. The damages awarded may be equal to the value of the benefit or service
conferred or may be based on the reasonable value of the benefit or service.

Case laws

1. Murlidhar Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1997)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a person who has not contracted to
perform a particular duty may be held liable to perform it under a quasi-contract. The
court observed that a quasi-contract is based on the principle of unjust enrichment, and is
a legal fiction created by the court to prevent a person from benefiting unfairly at the
expense of another.
2. Dhian Singh v. Union of India (1997)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a quasi-contract can arise even in the
absence of a direct contractual relationship between the parties. The court observed that a
quasi-contract is based on the principle of equity, and is intended to prevent unjust
enrichment.

Conclusion

Quasi-contracts, also known as "implied-in-law contracts," are legal constructs that are designed
to prevent unjust enrichment in situations where no formal contract exists between the parties
involved. Although quasi-contracts are not actual contracts, they are still legally enforceable. The
significance of quasi-contracts lies in their ability to provide a legal remedy in situations where
one party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another, even if there was no express
agreement or understanding between them. Quasi-contracts can also be used to remedy situations
where there has been a mistake or misunderstanding.

Research gaps

Research on quasi-contracts has focused on a range of topics, such as their legal framework, the
elements required for their formation, their application in different contexts, and the remedies
available to parties in quasi-contractual disputes. However, there are several areas where further
research is needed. Some potential research gaps in the study of quasi-contracts include:

1. The scope and limits of quasi-contracts: While quasi-contracts have been used to fill
gaps in contractual arrangements and prevent unjust enrichment, their scope and limits
remain unclear. Further research could explore the legal principles that guide the use of
quasi-contracts and their application in different contexts, including their relationship
with other legal doctrines such as restitution and unjust enrichment.
2. The role of equity in quasi-contracts: Quasi-contracts are often described as equitable
remedies, but the relationship between equity and quasi-contracts is not fully understood.
Further research could examine the role of equity in quasi-contractual disputes, including
the principles of fairness and justice that guide the courts in their decisions.

Suggestions
In India, quasi-contract is a legal concept that is based on the principle of "unjust enrichment". It
is a legal obligation that arises when one party is enriched at the expense of another party,
without any legally binding contract between them.

Here are some suggestions for quasi-contracts in India:

 1. Restitution: Quasi-contract can be used for restitution. This means that if someone has
received a benefit from someone else, they may be required to compensate that person for
the value of the benefit received.
2. Quantum Meruit: Another example of quasi-contract in India is quantum meruit. This
means that a person who has performed a service for another may be entitled to
compensation for that service, even if there was no prior agreement or contract for the
services.
3. Obligations of Finder of Lost Goods: In India, quasi-contract also applies to the
obligations of a finder of lost goods. If someone finds lost property and takes care of it,
they may be entitled to compensation for their services.
4. Payment of Necessaries: Quasi-contract can also be applied in cases where a person
provides necessities to another person without any contract. Necessaries include things
like food, clothing, and shelter, and if someone provides these things to another person,
they may be entitled to compensation.
5. Contribution to Common Obligation: If two or more parties are jointly responsible for
a debt or obligation, and one party pays more than their fair share, they may be entitled to
compensation from the other parties under the principle of quasi-contract.

Future scope of research

As India's economy expands and becomes more complex, the scope of quasi-contracts will
undoubtedly expand. When corporations and individuals engage in a wider variety of
transactions, the likelihood of disputes over money, services, and property will increase. Under
such situations, courts may rely increasingly on quasi-contracts to settle disputes and ensure
justice is done. Moreover, as India's legal system develops and adapts to the changing needs of
society, the scope of quasi-contracts may expand. This may require recognising new forms of
responsibilities, such as those arising from the use of technology or the sharing economy.