Introduction:

Quasi contract, also known as implied-in-law contract, is a type of contract which is not created by the mutual consent of the parties. Rather, it is imposed by law as a means to prevent unjust enrichment or unjust detriment to any party involved in a transaction. A quasi contract arises when one person has received a benefit from another person, and it would be unjust for the person who received the benefit to keep it without compensating the other person. In such cases, the law steps in and creates a quasi-contractual relationship between the parties.

The fundamentals of a quasi-contract: Lord Mansfied is regarded as the originator of this agreement. He claims that “natural justice mandates” that no one should obtain an unfair profit at the expense of an equally unfair loss.

This ruling was made in the following case: MOSES v. MACFERLAN: Such action is justified by money that was paid in error, money that was paid for something that didn’t work out, money that was obtained through coercion, extortion, or oppression, or money that was paid with improper understanding of the circumstances. Country to the legislation created for the protection of people in that situation. It is required to return the money by the laws of natural justice and equitable.

QUASI-CONTRACT QUALIFICATIONS:

1.  These agreements are imposed by law and never made by the persons involved.
2.  One side must give the other party money.
3.  This agreement grants one side the right. The other party is not opposed to the globe, once more.
4.  Only monetary compensation, not liquidated damages, may be claimed. Section 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with quasi-contracts.

According to Section 68, a person who has received a benefit from another person without any intention to do so is bound to compensate the other person for the benefit received.
The following are the components of Section 68:

1.  Provision of necessities to someone incapable of entering into contracts
2.  These items must be for the essential needs.
3.  The items must be appropriate for minors.
4.  The supplier has the option of recouping the cost using the minor’s property. Personal culpability is not involved.

It was decided in the 1844 case of Chapple v. Cooper that items considered needs are those without which it is impossible to survive. To a child or insane, necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine are essential. However, it must not be excessive.
Similarly, Section 69 deals with the reimbursement of a person who has paid for another person’s obligations.

Example: “B” is the owner of land in Bengal under a lease from zamidar “A.” Given that A is legally required to pay the government its revenue, the sale’s implications include the termination of B’s lease. B pays the government the amount due from A in order to stop the sale and subsequent cancellation of his own lease. A is required to produce the goods for B at the price paid.

Section 70 provides for compensation for a person who has done something on another person’s behalf,
The following conditions must be met in order for section 70 to apply:

1.  One person legally works for other.
2.  The behaviour is voluntary.
3.  He reaps some rewards for his efforts.
4.  The recipient of the act benefits from it.
5.  The act was not performed gratuitously.

Example: A tradesman named “A” accidentally drops off goods at B’s home. B treats the items as if they were his. He must compensate “A” for them.

and Section 71 deals with compensation for the person who has conferred a benefit on a third person means responsibility of finder of goods:

In the following situations, the finder may sell the items:

1.  When the item is in jeopardy of perish.
2.  When the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence.
3.  When the owner is identified but declines to pay the finder’s legal fees;
4.  When the finder’s legal fees, in relation to the thing located, equal 2/3 of the item’s value.

Finally, Section 72 provides for compensation for a person who has mistakenly believed that he was entitled to receive a benefit from another person.

Example: B hands over some gold rings, and A, brandishing a gun, takes them. Here, “A” is required by a fictitious contract to provide “B” the gold rings. The definitions of coercion and mistake in section 15 and 20 respectively are identical. There are clauses pertaining to quasi-contracts.

An example of a quasi-contract would be a situation where a person accidentally pays the wrong person for a service, and the person who received the payment did not provide the service. In such a case, the law would create a quasi-contractual relationship between the parties, and the person who received the payment would be obligated to compensate the person who paid for the service.

One of the most significant cases related to quasi-contracts in India is the case of Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad (AIR 1924 All 1). In this case, the plaintiff had mortgaged a property to the defendant and had defaulted on the mortgage payments. The defendant had taken possession of the property but had failed to account for the rent collected from the property. The court held that the defendant was liable to account for the rent collected and that a quasi-contractual relationship existed between the parties.

Another important case related to quasi-contracts is the case of State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (AIR 1972 SC 1636). In this case, the plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendant but had not received payment for the goods. The defendant had claimed that there was no valid contract between the parties. The court held that even though there was no valid contract between the parties, a quasi-contractual relationship existed between them, and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the goods supplied.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, quasi-contracts are a means to prevent unjust enrichment or unjust detriment to any party involved in a transaction. These contracts are created by law and impose obligations on the parties involved. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides for the various types of quasi-contracts and the obligations that arise from them. The cases of Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad and State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. illustrate the application of quasi-contracts in India.

Examples of quasi-contracts include:

Money paid by mistake: If a person pays money to another by mistake, the person who receives the money is obligated to return it to the rightful owner under a quasi-contract.
Work done under compulsion: If a person is forced to perform work under compulsion, they may be entitled to compensation under a quasi-contract.
Payment for goods or services provided without a contract: If a person provides goods or services to another without a contract, they may be entitled to payment for the value of the goods or services under a quasi-contract.
One notable case related to quasi-contracts is Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mohammad (1883), where the plaintiff had paid the defendant for the shipment of goods that were not delivered. The defendant argued that there was no contract between them for the delivery of the goods. The court held that the defendant had received the money as a result of unjust enrichment, and therefore was obligated to return it under a quasi-contract.
Another case is Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Kant Mookerjee (1876), where the defendant, a Hindu widow, had leased out property that she did not own to the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the lease was void because she did not have the authority to lease the property. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under a quasi-contract for the value of the leasehold improvements he had made to the property.