This document discusses quasi contracts and certain sections of Indian law related to unjust enrichment. It notes that quasi contracts are based on the principle that no one should benefit unjustly at the cost of another. Section 70 establishes the obligation of persons who benefit from non-gratuitous acts. Money paid due to mistake, whether of fact or law, can be recovered under Section 72 unless the defendant was not unjustly enriched. The distinction between Section 20 and 72 is that Section 20 deals with void agreements due to mistakes of fact while Section 72 deals with reimbursement for mistakes or coercion in quasi contracts.
This document discusses quasi contracts and certain sections of Indian law related to unjust enrichment. It notes that quasi contracts are based on the principle that no one should benefit unjustly at the cost of another. Section 70 establishes the obligation of persons who benefit from non-gratuitous acts. Money paid due to mistake, whether of fact or law, can be recovered under Section 72 unless the defendant was not unjustly enriched. The distinction between Section 20 and 72 is that Section 20 deals with void agreements due to mistakes of fact while Section 72 deals with reimbursement for mistakes or coercion in quasi contracts.
This document discusses quasi contracts and certain sections of Indian law related to unjust enrichment. It notes that quasi contracts are based on the principle that no one should benefit unjustly at the cost of another. Section 70 establishes the obligation of persons who benefit from non-gratuitous acts. Money paid due to mistake, whether of fact or law, can be recovered under Section 72 unless the defendant was not unjustly enriched. The distinction between Section 20 and 72 is that Section 20 deals with void agreements due to mistakes of fact while Section 72 deals with reimbursement for mistakes or coercion in quasi contracts.
Certain Relations resembling those created by contract
The basis of this obligation is that no one should have Unjust Enrichment at the cost of another Lord Mansfield considered to be the real founder of such obligation based on the above principle. Section 68
Discussed under Capacity to contracts
Section 69
Interested in making the payment
Himself should not be bound to pay Defendant should have been bound by law to pay the money. Payment to another person and not to himself Port trust Madras v. Bombay co. AIR 1967 Mad 31 Section 70
Obligation of persons enjoying benefit of non gratuitous act
Essentials: Lawful doing/ delivering No intention to do the act gratuitously State of West Bengal v. BK Mondal & Sons Enjoyment of benefit by the defendant is necessary P.C. Wadhwa v. State of Punjab Section 70 applicable on Government as well Section 70 not invoked against minor Section 71
Finder treated as a bailee in terms of duties and liabilities.
Read with Section 169 Finder’s right of lien and compensation Section 72
Money paid under mistake is recoverable whether the mistake is fact or
law payment should be without authority of the law Money is not receivable where there is no unjust enrichment of the defendant If the receiver of money has no longer the same with him and has further paid it under a similar mistake he cannot be required to repay the same. (United bank of India v. A.T.A.K Hussaini) Distinction between Section 20 and 72
Under S. 20 any agreement which has been entered due to a mistake of
facts is void. If under such a mistake some goods have been delivered or some money has been paid then it has to be reimbursed under S. 65. However, S. 72 deals with a different situation that of a quasi contract. Under this Section the money or goods have been delivered not due to an agreement but due to a mistake or coercion. The reimbursement under this Section has to be made under S. 65 but under S. 72 itself
The 5 Elements of the Highly Effective Debt Collector: How to Become a Top Performing Debt Collector in Less Than 30 Days!!! the Powerful Training System for Developing Efficient, Effective & Top Performing Debt Collectors