THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT ,1872

(Paper Code:BL-2005)
BA.LL.B. Semester III
(Batch 2022-27)
Topic: Quasi Contract

MS NEHA SINGH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE
The concept of quasi-contract was first discussed within the case of Moses v MacFarlane. In this

case, Ruler Mansfield stated that such commitment was based upon the law as well as justice to

anticipate undue advantage to one individual at the cost of others.

Principle : Unjust enrichment: A benefit received at the expense of another

Statutory Provisions:
Section 68 of the Act provides remedies to the person who supports and provides life-saving
necessities to another individual who is not capable of entering into a contract or to whom he is
legally bound to support.

In the case of Jai Indra Bahadur Singh v. Dilraj Kaur Money was advanced to a minor for his
sister’s marriage, which under this section was found to be necessary and can be recovered from
his property.
Section 69 provides remedies to the person who is interested in the
payment of money that another is bound by law to pay and who therefore
pays it is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.

P left his carriage on D’s premises .D’s landlord seized the carriage for
distress for rent .P paid the rent to obtain the release of his carriage .
P could recover the amount from D .
Exall V Partridge
Section 70 provides a remedy to a person who does an act or delivers something, not gratuitously,
causing benefit to another person, then the person who benefited is liable to provide
compensation or affect the restoration of the thing delivered.

NB was signing for the firm of defendants . Her songs were recorded and commercially marketed
.There was no formal contract between them .

Held : Defendants were liable to pay her services as they made business out of her work .

Neha Bhasin V Anand RaajAnand (2006)

Section 71 provides a remedy to the owner of a good or property from a person who finds the
owner’s goods or belongings and takes them into his custody by providing him with the same
responsibility as that of the bailee.

In the case of Newman v. Bourne and Hollingsworth, the plaintiff lost his ring in the defendant’s
shop. One of the defendant’s servants found the ring in the shop and then kept it in a cupboard,
Later when the plaintiff came back to the shop in search of his ring, it was stolen. Here the
defendant was held liable for not taking care of the same.
Section 72 provides a remedy to the owner of goods whose belonging was
delivered to another by mistake or under coercion. The person who receives it
should return it as per this section.

An insurance company paid the amount on a policy under the mistake that the
goods had been destroyed by a peril insured against . The goods in fact had been
sold . The money could be recovered by the insurance company .

Norwich Society Ltd V Price (W.H.) Ltd