Quasi-contract is a legal obligation imposed by law in the absence of an agreement to prevent unjust enrichment.
## Core concept
A quasi-contract is not a true contract because there is no offer, acceptance, or consensus ad idem. Instead, the law imposes an obligation on one party to pay money to another to prevent unjust enrichment. These are creatures of statute under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 68–72).
Key characteristics: - No actual agreement between parties - Created by operation of law - Remedy is to recover money/benefit conferred - Based on principle that no one should be unjustly enriched at another's expense - Quasi-contractual obligations are not enforceable as contracts but as restitutionary claims
## Five types of quasi-contracts (Sections 68–72)
Section 68: Supply of necessaries to person incapable of contracting - When goods/services (necessaries) are supplied to someone who cannot contract (e.g., a minor, person of unsound mind), the supplier can recover the cost from that person's property. - Example: Doctor treating an unconscious accident victim can recover fees from the victim's estate.
Section 69: Payment made by one person on behalf of another - If A pays a sum due by B without being legally obligated, B must repay A. - Condition: A must act without authority and B must have known or could have known of the payment.
Section 70: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act - When a person enjoys a benefit from a non-gratuitous (paid) act performed by another without authorization, they must compensate the performer. - Example: X repairs A's roof during a storm without asking. A must pay X a reasonable amount.
Section 71: Restoration of goods delivered by mistake or coercion - If goods are delivered to someone by mistake or under coercion, they must return them or compensate for them. - Example: Money paid under duress or goods sent by mistake must be returned.
Section 72: Liability of person to whom money is paid or goods delivered by mistake - Similar to Section 71 but specific to money or goods mistakenly paid/delivered. - The recipient must restore or pay the value.
## Common exam applications
- Distinguishing from contract: A quasi-contract requires no consensus; a true contract does.
- Unjust enrichment test: Did the defendant receive a benefit? Was it at the claimant's expense? Would it be unjust to retain it?
- Incapacity scenarios: Quasi-contracts are the only remedy for necessaries supplied to minors or lunatics (true contracts are void).
- Restitution claims: Quantified by reasonable value, not contract price.
## Common mistakes
- Confusing quasi-contracts with void/voidable contracts. Quasi-contracts are not contracts at all; they bypass consent entirely.
- Thinking quasi-contracts require authority. They explicitly work without authority (Section 70).
- Assuming all benefits trigger quasi-contractual liability. The act must be non-gratuitous and the benefit non-voluntary (or benefit to incapacitated person).
- Forgetting that quasi-contractual remedies are restitutionary, not compensatory. The aim is to restore the status quo, not to recover loss.
Worked example (exam-style): X, a doctor, treats Y (a minor) in an emergency without parental consent. Treatment costs ₹5,000. Can X recover? Answer: Yes, under Section 68. The treatment is a necessary supplied to an incapable person. X can recover ₹5,000 from Y's parent/guardian or Y's property. This is not a contract but a quasi-contractual claim for restitution.