A quasi contract is not really a contract at all, since there is no offer, acceptance, or mutual agreement between the parties involved. Instead, it is an obligation that the law imposes on a person to prevent unjust enrichment, meaning a situation where one party unfairly benefits at another’s expense without paying for it. Quasi contracts under Indian law exist to ensure fairness even when no formal agreement was ever made. This concept is grounded firmly in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and continues to apply in everyday situations, from mistaken payments to unclaimed goods.
What Makes a Quasi Contract Different From a Real Contract
A real contract requires consensus between parties, meaning both sides genuinely agree to the same terms. A quasi contract, by contrast, is created by operation of law rather than agreement. Courts and the statute step in because letting one party keep an unfair benefit would be unjust, even though neither side intended to form a contract. This is why quasi contracts are sometimes called “contracts implied in law,” as opposed to ordinary contracts that are express or implied in fact.
Statutory Basis Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Quasi contracts under Indian law are dealt with in Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, titled “Of Certain Relations Resembling Those Created by Contract.” This chapter covers Sections 68 to 72, and each section addresses a distinct situation.
- Section 68: Deals with necessaries supplied to a person incapable of contracting, such as a minor or a person of unsound mind. The supplier is entitled to reimbursement from the property of such a person.
- Section 69: Covers reimbursement for a person who pays money on behalf of another, where that other person was legally bound to pay it. The person who made the payment can recover it.
- Section 70: Applies when a person lawfully does something for another, or delivers something to them, without intending to do so for free, and the other person enjoys the benefit of it. The person receiving the benefit must compensate the one who provided it.
- Section 71: Establishes the responsibility of a finder of goods, who must take reasonable care of the goods, try to find the true owner, and return them, similar to the obligations of someone entrusted with property.
- Section 72: Requires a person who has received money or goods by mistake or under coercion to repay or return it to the person from whom it was received.
Comparison Table: Key Sections at a Glance
| Section | Situation Covered | Who Can Claim | Nature of Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 68 | Necessaries supplied to incompetent person | Supplier | Reimbursement from property |
| Section 69 | Payment of another’s legal obligation | Person who paid | Reimbursement of amount paid |
| Section 70 | Non-gratuitous act or delivery benefiting another | Person who acted or delivered | Compensation for benefit |
| Section 71 | Finding of goods | True owner, with duties on finder | Return of goods, reasonable care |
| Section 72 | Money or goods received by mistake or coercion | Person who paid or delivered | Repayment or return |
Frequently Asked Questions
No, it is an obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment, not an agreement between parties.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically Sections 68 to 72 under Chapter V.
Yes, but only from the minor’s property, not personally, under Section 68.
Under Section 69, they can recover that amount from the person who was legally bound to pay it.
No, Section 70 applies only when the act was not intended to be gratuitous.
Want the deeper dive? Grab the reference book.
