QUASI CONTRACTS

1. Both the terms quasi contact and agreement resembling contract are used
interchangeably. The Indian law uses the latter term.
2. Section 70- The elements required for the quasi contract:-
a. The act should be intended to be done gratuitously and the other person should
enjoy (knows) the benefit therefore.
b. The other person should have accepted it voluntarily.
c. If the above elements are present, then payable Compensation is at market price
(Quantum Mertiut claim)
3. The BK Mondal case:-
a. There was a part of land and a particular section 175(2) stated that the governor
must sign very agreement pertaining got the land. Irrespective of the sign, BK
mondal started building for the west Bengal government.
b. The West Bengal government contended that due to no sign, there is no
contract. It was also contended that if the compensation is held payable under
70, then the entire aspect of the getting the sign of the governor and taking
permission will be negated.
c. The other side made a claim under section 70.
d. The court did not take the third agreement and proceeded to award the claim.
e. The compensation criteria held:-
i. Compensation as if contract has been performed as the Indian contract
act seeks to restore the position of the parties.
ii. Compensation as per market value i.e. Quantum Meritum claim.
f. Two situations can be considered:-
i. There was contract of 24,000. If it is breached, the party will get 24,000.
ii. If there was no contract what so ever, the party put in 18,000 as
investment and gains some profit. In this, case the compensation will be
given as per Quantum Mertium claim.
g. At a critical level, it could be argued that the case could have pleaded under
section 65 where the contract due to absence of the sign of contract, can be
argued as void.

Section 25 cannot apply as there is no consensus ad idum

UNJUST ENRICHMENT:-

Section 65, 70, etc is as these introduced in India the concept of unjust enrichment.

Situation 1:- B is a key maker and A has a huge trunk and A does not what is inside it. B is
the only person in the world who can open it. B opens it. Then, it turns out that the trunk
has a lot of money. The question is had B not opened it then A had not got access to the
money, so A is benefitted at the expense of B. So, should B have a share of money found in
the trunk?

Answer:- Section 70 applies and B gets the Quamtum Meriut claim.

Situation 2:- A has a car in his garage and is not being used. B takes A’s car without his
permission. B goes to Delhi and gets a huge contract. Had B not used A’s car, he would not
have been able to get the contract. So, how much is A entitled to?

Answer:- SECTION 70 i.e. Quantum Meriut claim would apply like the taxi rate, etc.

Situation3:- The Contract between A and B is vitiated due to fraud. So, A duped B for five
lakhs. A then puts five lakhs of his money and buys a house worth 30 lakhs. Had A not got
the B’s money, he would not have brought the house. So, how much money is B entitled to
get?

Answer:-Section would not apply as it is a void contract. The traditional approach in contract
law looked at the loss occurring to B and the compensation of that loss. When there is a
void contract, the section 73 and 74 does not apply. So, the language of 64(“restore such
benefit” and 65 (“any advantage”) and 70 (“restoration of person enjoying the benefit
again”) states is in terms of profit and not loss.

In the above situation, the law will look at all restoring all the benefits received by A at the
expense of B. Here, the phrase ‘at the expense’ is not quantum but causation.

A benefitted by 15 lakhs is benefit of A at B’s expense. B has to show that A had not invested
in house had he did not have the 5 lakhs form B. It is because the law would not allow for
any person to gain out a void or bad in law contract.

Aspects of law of unjust enrichment:-

a. There should be no contract or there should be a void contract.

b. The wrongdoing party should benefit at the expense of the other party.
c. Calculation of benefit is subjective in nature as the concept of enjoyment is
subjective and has to be proved by facts.
d. Limitation to benefit in most cases where services are involved is the claim of
Quantum Meritum as under section 70.

Very important:-

The principle is if any person is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, such person
has to restore the enrichment or gain received thereof to the other party. The claim has to
be at the expense of the claimant.

This is different from breach of contract case where the law will only look at the loss
occurred and the restore such loss. It need not be always at the expense of the claimant.
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Standard rule:- The only condition where this remedy is allowed where damages is not an
adequate remedy. For example case of art, reputation, etc. This has to be proved the
claimant in the court of law.