Introduction

A number of examples that have little to no connection to contracts have been grouped under the
umbrella term "quasi contract." The legal action to reclaim money paid in error provides a
straightforward illustration. Law, no less than justice, will demand the defendant to return any money
that the plaintiff paid to the defendant based on an incorrect interpretation of the facts. But even in the
broad sense of the word that English law gives it, his responsibility is clearly not founded on
agreement, and calling it a quasi-contractual liability simply helps to highlight how far removed it is
from any true notion of contract.

This demonstrates that even when a person hasn't broken any contracts or committed any crimes, the
law and justice frequently demand that they be made to comply with a responsibility. If a person
whose home certain products have been accidentally left in is obligated to restore them, that would be
another example of a quasi-contract that would be worthy of quoting for a better understanding of
quasi-contract. This demonstrates that one cannot accept unfair benefits at the expense of another. For
lack of a better or more appropriate name, these kinds of responsibilities are typically referred to as
quasi contractual obligations.

It might be better to state that a quasi-contract consists of a contractual obligation that is entered into
because the law prohibits one party from unfairly benefiting at the expense of another party rather
than because the parties have consented to it.

Rationale

Lord Mansfield made the earliest and most comprehensive attempt to offer such a foundation in
Moses v. Macferlan in the year 1760. Thus, Lord Mansfield, who is credited with creating these
requirements, outlined them in accordance with the idea that both law and justice should work to
avoid "Unjust Enrichment," or the enlargement of one person at the expense of another. This
justification was made by His Lordship in Moses v. Macferlan.

Facts of the case:- One Jacob issued four promissory notes to Moses and the latter indorsed them to
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 the agreement. Moses was
thus compelled to discharge a liability which he had excluded and, therefore, sued to recover back his
money from Macferlan. He was allowed to do so. After making the defendant liable to restore the
money Lord MANSFIELD continued as follows: After stating that such money cannot be recovered
where the person to whom it is given can “retain it with a safe conscience”, he stated that “here it lies
for the money paid by mistake; or upon a consideration which happens to be fail; or for money got
through imposition; or extortion; or oppression; or for an undue advantage taken off the plaintiff’s
situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of the persons under those circumstances. In one
word the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged
by ties of the natural justice and equity to refund the money.”

POSITION AFTER THE CASE:- (Moses v. Macferlan in year 1760) A liability of this kind is hard
to classify as: Partly it resembles liability under the law of tort in as much as it arises independently of
any contract. Partly it resembles to contract in as much as it is owed only to one party and not to the
“persons generally”. Thus it can be accounted for either under an implied contract or under natural
justice and equity for the prevention of unjust enrichment. But Lord MANSFIELD preferred the latter
theory that the bases for quasi contracts are for the purpose of prevention of unjust enrichment.

Purpose

When one party receives a benefit or piece of property from another, a quasi-contract describes the
responsibility of the first party to the second. Without a written contract, a person may provide
anything of value to another without their knowledge or consent. It is presumed that a reasonable
individual would pay for it, return it, or provide some other kind of payment to the giver in exchange
for the good or service.

In order to protect a giver from exploitation and prevent others from unfairly benefiting, quasi
contracts are granted as a remedy.

Legality

Neither party is required to consent to the agreement because it was created in a court of law and is
therefore enforceable.

When one side has an advantage over another, the quasi-contract is intended to produce a fair result.
The plaintiff, the person who was wronged, is entitled to compensation equal to the worth of the item
from the defendant, the party who gained it.

Requirements

A judge must have the following conditions before issuing a quasi contract:

A transfer must have resulted in a loss for one person, the plaintiff.
The defendant must have either received the valuable item or admitted receiving it, kept it, and made
no attempt or offer to pay for it.

The burden of proof then shifts to the plaintiff to show why the defendant received an unjust
enrichment.

The product or service was not presented as a gift.

It was necessary to give the defendant the option to accept or reject the benefit.

Elements of a Quasi Contract

A quasi contract is based on three fundamental principles.

The plaintiff must demonstrate the goods or services for which they were entitled to compensation.

The goods or services must have been accepted by the defendant and they must have provided some
benefit.

Lastly, the plaintiff must have been denied compensation because the defendant accepted the goods or
services in an unfair manner.

Before the services were rendered or the goods were received, stipulations agreed upon by both
parties would typically be outlined in a standard legal contract. A semi agreement, nonetheless,
becomes possibly the most important factor when one party never had any goal of going into a
legitimate agreement. When this happens, the court steps in to make a contract and make sure that
both parties are treated fairly.

POSITION OF QUASI CONTRACT IN INDIAN LAW:-

Chapter V of the Indian contract Act 1872 deals with the situations qualifying the quasi contractual
obligations under the heading “Of certain relations resembling to those created by contract”. The
chapter avoids the words “quasi contract”, and in view of the clear statutory authorization of the
courts in India is not hindered in allowing relief under the different sections of the Act by the
theoretical considerations concerning quasi contracts. But the English cases do provide valuable
guidance: Not only as to the scope of the relief But also as to the way the provisions should be
interpreted to keep hem in tune with the changing notions of justice. Provisions under Indian contract
law:- Section 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides for five kinds of quasi-contractual
obligations they are as follows:-

1. supply of necessaries [sec. 68] 2. payment by interested person [sec. 69] 3. Liability to pay for
non-gratuitous acts [sec. 70] 4. finder of goods [sec. 71] 5. Mistake or coercion [sec. 72]
Section 68 states that "Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his
account". "If a person incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone he is legally bound to support,
is supplied by another with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished
such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person." [Claim for
necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on

The section's components are as follows:

A person who is unable to enter into a contract or a person he is legally obligated to support must be
provided with the necessities, and reimbursement must be claimed from the incapable person's
property. The necessities provided must be appropriate for the person receiving them.

Facts: Mr. Sharma v. Mr. Nitin

A furniture store is owned by Mr. Sharma. Kamal, a student in class X, requested a study table for his
space. Nitin, his father, was adamant about not spending money on things that weren't necessary.
Kamal paid a visit to Mr. Sharma's store and made an offer to purchase a study table for 5000 rupees.
Mr. Sharma noticed when he looked at Kamal that he was not yet eighteen years old. Mr Sharma let
Kamal know that provided that his dad consented to address the cost, will Mr Sharma offer the table
to Kamal. Kamal vowed to Mr Sharma that he would guarantee that his dad Nitin makes the
installment. Nitin declined to pay the bill.

Judgement:

The court legitimized that we ought to take a gander at the actual premise of Segment 11, which is
that a party clumsy of understanding the outcomes ought not be the party which endures misfortunes,
money related etc., due to its failure to comprehend the results of the agreement, in context with the
law,which says a decent might be an important to a minor, however the quality or amount provided
may deliver them pointless.

The counsel for the plaintiff has failed to refute the fact that the 5000/- rupees required to purchase a
study table is not a large sum, and they have also failed to demonstrate, through sound arguments or
evidence, that the in question study table was indeed required. Because of this, we conclude that the
questioned study table does not meet the definition of a necessity. As a result, the court concludes that
the disputed study table does not meet Section 68's definition of a necessity.

According to Section 69, "Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment of
which he is interested" refers to the reimbursement.

A person who is interested in making a payment that another person is legally required to make can
expect to be reimbursed by the other.

The conditions of liability set forth in section 69 are:

The plaintiff must be interested in making the payment as the first requirement.

The subsequent fundamental condition is that it is essential that the offended party himself ought not
will undoubtedly pay . He ought to just be keen on making the installment just to safeguard his own
advantage . Where an individual is mutually at risk with others to pay , an installment by him of the
others' portion wouldn't provide him with a right of recuperation

Thirdly the respondent ought to have been limited by regulation to pay cash . After some deliberation,
it was determined that the term "bound by law" meant "bound by contract" or "bound by law." The
fourth and final condition is that the plaintiff should have made payment, not to himself. It is not
necessary that the liability only be statutory.

Sanchaiti, Gobind Ram, and Others versus Ram Kishore Choudhari and Others

In this case, it was decided that a buyer of an estate from a limited owner who had interests in the
property made the claim to get out of a mortgage that was still in place. The issue of reimbursement is
the focus of this chapter. Segment 69 connects with a situation where the individual who makes the
installment is keen on such installment, albeit another is by regulation bound to pay it.

According to Section 70, the person receiving benefits from a non-gratuitous act is obligated.

When someone legally does something for another person or gives something to another person
without intending to do so for free, and that person gets the benefit of it, that person is obligated to
pay back the other person for what they did or gave.
Before any legal recourse under section 70 occurs, and three requirements must be met:

The action must have been legal.

The person committing the act should not have done so unintentionally.

The person for whom the act is performed must have benefited from it.

A case in which "K," a government employee, was forced to retire by the government, serves as an
illustration of the aforementioned. He documented a writ request and got a directive against the
request. He was reinstated and given a salary, but he was given no work, so the government appealed.
[Shyam Lal vs. State of U.P. A.I.R (1968) 130]

Section 71 states that Responsibility of finder of goods. A person who finds goods to another and
takes them into his custody is subject to the same responsibilities as a bailee. The appeal was decided
in favor of the government, and "K" was ordered to return the salary that was paid to him during the
time that he was reinstated. He is obligated to safeguard the goods with the same level of care that a
prudent man would take of his own belongings of comparable size, quality, and value in similar
circumstances. He will be liable for wrongful conversion of the property if he does not comply. Till
the proprietor is found out, the property in merchandise will vest in the locater and he can hold the
products as his own against the entire world.

Case:

A railway authority that took into its custody wagons containing the plaintiff's goods and which were
left across the border in Pakistan become the contractual bailees of goods, and it was not necessary to
regard them as finders within the meaning of section 70, as the supreme court ruled in Union of India
vs. Amar Singh that the statutory fiction by which a contract of bailment is inferred between a finder
of goods and the real owner should not be enlarged by analogy or otherwise

Section 72: Liabilities of the person to whom money is paid or a thing is given by mistake or under
coercion.The person to whom money is paid or a thing is given by mistake or under coercion is
obligated to repay or return the money to the person who gave it to them by mistake or under
coercion.

For every kind of "mistake," you can get your money back or get your goods back. According to
Shivprasad v. Sirish Chandra A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 297], the municipal authorities can recover a
payment of municipal tax that was made in error or because the terms of the lease were not
understood. In the case of Sales tax officer vs. Kanhaiyalal A.I.R.1959 S.C.835, the preceding law
was upheld by the Supreme Court. Similarly, any money paid through coercion can also be recovered.
Section 15 of the Act does not necessarily apply to the meaning of the word "coercion." [Seth
Khanjelek v. National Bank of India]says that the word can mean anything from oppression to
extortion. In a case where "T" was traveling in a tram car without a ticket and was asked to pay 5 as a
penalty for compounding the transaction when he was checked in. T claimed that the corporation had
extorted him and filed a recovery lawsuit against it. The court ruled in his favor. [ The Recovery of
Quasi Contracts Three general scenarios outline recovery in a quasi contract: Trikamdas vs. Bombay
Municipal Corporation A.I.R.1954]

the absence of a contract that would ensure that the plaintiff receives a fair settlement.

the existence of a contract that cannot be enforced.

while breaking a previous contract, the plaintiff receives some benefit.

Job Of Semi Agreement And The Court

A court will make a semi agreement when an authority understanding is missing between certain
parties.Typically, debates will emerge over installments for administrations delivered or merchandise.
Any party to the dispute will be protected from unfair enrichment by the court.

As a result, a quasi-contract can take the place of a real one and is meant to encourage equitable
treatment between the parties. It is safe to say that quasi-contracts are formed in situations where legal
agreements should have been made but were not.

Commonly, a real agreement is important to expect a litigant to take responsibility for labor and
products. At the point when this isn't true, numerous purviews in the US will find that compensation
might be accomplished through a semi agreement.

Contract & Quasi Contract

Quasi Contract Only Implied in Law: An implied duty to pay is one that is made possible by the law,
in this case, a judge who provides a remedy.

Ordered by a Judge: Since contracts implied by law are not covered by contract law, judges order
quasi-contracts.

No Contract Exists: Quasi contracts are not contracts; rather, they are means of resolving
disagreements between parties when one party has benefited unfairly.
Express or Implied Contracts Are Both Possible: Contracts can be classified as either express or
implied. An express contract is one in which the conditions are specified and are accepted by both
parties. In the case of an exchange where both parties provide their consent, but there is no explicit
contract.

Advantages of Quasi – Contract

The fact that quasi contracts are frequently founded on the unjust enrichment principle is one benefit
of employing them. As a result, no side will be given an unfair edge over another. As a result, it
protects innocent victims of wrongdoing and serves as a legitimate substitute for monetary damages,
ensuring that the provider of products or services is adequately reimbursed. As pseudo contracts are
established by court order, all parties concerned are required to abide by them.

Dis-advantages of Quasi Contract

There are a few shortcomings or restrictions as well. The recipients of assistance who did so
recklessly, needlessly, or by mistake will not be held accountable. A person can be held accountable
for a quasi-contract, but his liability is limited to the amount he has been paid. Therefore, there is no
provision for the recovery of an amount greater than that which has already been obtained by the
plaintiff. If the plaintiff only receives a portion of the services or goods he originally contracted for, he
is ineligible for compensation because the full sum was not recovered.

Conclusion

Even if the quasi contract idea is frequently disregarded, it nevertheless has a crucial role to play
because it is based on the fairness and equality principles. Despite the fact that Quasi Contract has
been modified and given a new name in the Indian Contract Act. The fundamental character and
essence of the concepts, however, have not changed significantly throughout time. Thus, quasi
contracts are an essential part of the Contracts Act and they unquestionably help the victim when
someone gains unfairly more than they should.