QUASI CONTRACT

It an obligation which the law creates in d absence of the agreement .It is not a contract in the strict sense of the term because there is no real contract in existence. A contract is intentionally entered into. A quasi contract is, on the other hand, is created by law. Moreover there is no intension of the parties to enter into the contract. The Indian contract act does not use the term quasi contract for such obligation. QUASI CONTRACT: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF SITUATIONS RESEMBLING TO THOSE CREATED BY CONTRACT POSITION OF QUASI CONTRACT IN INDIAN LAW: 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 quasicontractual obligations they are as follows:1. 2. 3. supply of necessaries [sec. 68] payment by interested person [sec. 69] Liability to pay for non-gratuitous acts [sec. 70]

4. 5.

finder of goods [sec. 71] Mistake or coercion [sec. 72]

SUPPLY OF NECESSARIES [SECTION 68] Where necessaries are supplied to a person who is incompetent to contract or to someone who is legally bound to support, the supplier is entitled to recover the price from the property of the incompetent person. Section 68 reads as under: CLAIM FOR THE NECESSARIES SUPPLIED TO PERSON INCAPABLE OF CONTRACTING, OR ON HIS ACCOUNT: - If a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by the another person 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. Examples:a)A, Supplies to B, a lunatic, with the necessaries suitable to his condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from Bs property. PAYMENT BY INTERESTED PERSON [SECTION 69] Reimbursement by a person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is interested: - A person who is interested in the payment of money, which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other. LIABILITY TO PAY FOR NON GRATUITOUS ACTS: [SECTION 70] Obligation of a person enjoying benefit of a non-gratuitous act:- where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound
2

to make compensation to the former in this respect of, to restore, the thing so done or delivered. FINDER OF GOODS:- [SECTION 71] Responsibility of finder of goods: A person, who finds goods belonging to some another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Thus in respect of duties and liabilities, a finder is treated at par with bailee. The finders position is therefore considered along with bailment. MISTAKE OR COERCION: [SECTION 72] Liability of a person to whom money is paid, or things delivered, by mistake or under coercion: - A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Law:Money paid under mistake is recoverable irrespective of the fact that whether the mistake is of fact or of law. The controversy between the High Court Decisions as to whether money paid under mistake of law could be recovered was set at rest by the Privy Council in Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh v. Maharaja Srish Chandra Nanadi, COERCION:The word coercion used in this section is used in the general sense and not as defined in section 15. Thus the money paid under pressure of circumstances, such as prevention of the execution of a decree on a property in which the party paying is interested QUASI CONTRACTS IN ENGLISH LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:In The Law of Restitution Goff and Jones recognize three main classes:
3

1) 2)

where the defendant has acquired a benefit from or by the act of the plantiff; where the defendant has acquired from a third party a benefit for which he must

account to the Plantiff; 3) Where the defendant has acquired a benefit through his wrongful act. In this discussion a distinction is drawn between genuine quasi contracts and those claims whose status as quasi-contractual is doubtful. A) Genuine Quasi-Contracts Those cases which are generally accepted as genuine quasi contracts may for the sake of convenience be considered under six separate heads. MONEY PAID BY THE PLANTIFF TO THE DEFENDANTS USE:If the plantiff has been compelled to pay money for which the defendant is liable, he may sue the defendant for the amount so paid. In this the short and simple statement of law two points must be stressed. To succeed in his claim the plantiff must prove a) b) that he has been constrained to pay the money and That it is money for which the defendant was legally liable. In section 69 of Indian Contract law 1872 which talks about Reimbursement by a person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is interested: A person who is interested in the payment of money, which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other. MONEY PAID UNDER MISTAKE:Where the money is paid to another under the influence of a mistake that is upon the supposition that the specific fact is true which would entitle the other to the

money, but which fact is untrue and the money would not have been paid if it had been known to the payer that the fact was untrue, an action will lie to recover it back Five points require to be attended here are: 1) It was long back held that in order to entitle the plantiff to recover, the mistake

upon which he has acted must be one of the fact and not of law. 2) The mistake upon which the plantiff relies need not to have arisen in connection

with any supposed contract. 3) The person who has paid the money has no right to recovery if he knew that the

payment was not due. In this case he is not allowed to recover back the money for the reason of carelessness. But one qualification of this rule must be observed. The money is not recoverable if the court draws the interference that the plantiff has paid it at his own risk, irrespective of the true state of the facts. Recklessness or indifference may estop him, where carelessness will not. 4) A question that has long troubled the courts is whether the mistake must have led

the plantiff to believe that he was legally bound to pay money or whether a purely voluntary payment is equally recoverable. Bramwell B in 1856 had little doubt of the answer- In order to entitle a person to recover back money paid under a mistake of fact, the mistake must be as to a fact, which, if true would make the person paying liable to pay the money; not where, if true, it would merely make it desirable that he should pay the money.[25] 5) Although prima facie he is entitled to the payment but a plantiff may be estopped

from relying on his mistake where he has represented to the defendant that the money was in fact due and the defendant has spent which he would not otherwise done. This kind of Quasi Contract in English Law resembles section 72 of Indian Contract Act 1872 but with the difference that the Indian Law is not making

any distinction between Mistakes of fact and Mistake of law which English Law do actually CLAIMS AGAINST WRONGDOER:A plantiff, who has suffered a loss through a wrongful act committed against him by the defendant, may in certain circumstances be entitled to sue the defendant in quasi contract for the money had and received to his use. He may for instance have been compelled by the improper pressure of the defendant to pay money which could not lawfully have been demanded from him.This kind of quasi contract in English Law resembles to the coercion part of Section 72 of Indian Contract Act 1872. CLAIMS ON A QUANTUM MERUIT Where a party has in the performance of his contract done some work or rendered some services and the further performance has been made useless by the other party, he may recover reasonable compensation for the work or service B) DOUBTFUL QUASI CONTRACT:In a number of cases where the law affords a remedy, it is difficult to determine whether this is founded upon a genuine, if tacit, consent and is contractual, or whether it is independent of the consent and is quasi-contractual. The following are the most important of these cases. ACCOUNTS STATED:The Plantiff who sues upon an account stated proceeds upon the assumption that the defendant has admitted a debt to be due to him. This remedy can be applicable in two separate sets of circumstances. On one hand where the plantiff and the defendant are having a set off account. On other hand where plantiff and the defendant are having some mutual agreement of showing that plantiff is suppose to receive something from the defendant due to him.

JUDGMENT DEBTS:The liability to pay a sum adjudged to be due by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether it be an English, or, in certain cases, a foreign tribunal, has sometimes been classified under the head of Quasi-Contract MONEY DUE UNDER STATUTE, BYE-LAW OR CUSTOM:The language of the tradition has sometimes encouraged the inclusion within the category of the Quasi-Contract of claims for money due under statute or bye-law, or by force of custom. CLAIMS FOR NECESSARY GOODS SUPPLIED TO PERSONS UNDER

INCAPACITY:Under English law the claim by the plantiff against the necessary goods supplied to a person under incapacity comes under the category of doubtful quasi-contracts. But in Indian Law section 68 of Indian Contract law deals with the claim of Necessities, which make it a efficient and well developed branch of Quasi contract. CONCLUSION:The principle of quasi contract is often ignored but still it holds a very important place, since the principle is grounded on the principles of justice and equity. Despite the fact that Quasi Contract is molded in the Indian Contract Act under a new name. However the basic nature and essence of the principles of the remains the same without any drastic change. Thus Quasi contract forms an integral of the contracts Act and it definitely comes to an aid of the victim when the person enriched unjustly over the former.