Quasi Contract

Author: Preeti Singh Bhadoria, Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida

What is a Contract?

Contract, in the easiest definition, a promise enforceable by law. The promise may be to do something or to abstain from doing something. The making of a contract requires the shared consent of two or more persons, one of them commonly making an offer and another tolerating. On the off chance that one of the parties comes up short to keep the guarantee, the other is entitled to legal change.

Can there be a contract without offer, acknowledgment, consideration, etc? Well, yes there can be such a contract based on social obligation. We call such contracts quasi-contract.

History of Quasi Contract

The history of quasi-contract can be taken after back to the Middle Ages, under a home that was alluded to back at that point as an indebitatus assumption. In that period, the law managed that a plaintiff would get a whole of cash from the litigant, in a sum directed by the courts, as if the litigant had continuously concurred to pay the offended party for his good or services.

Indebitatus assumption was a strategy utilized by the courts to form one party to pay another as if a contract had been made between the two parties. The defendant’s understanding to be bound by a contract that required recompense was inferred by the law. The early days within the history of quasi-contract saw such contracts being utilized to uphold commitments related to compensation.

Quasi Contract

The word ‘Quasi’ means pseudo. Subsequently, a Quasi-contract may be a pseudo-contract. When we talk about substantial contact, we expect it to have certain components like offer and acceptance, though, the capacity to contract, and free will. But there are other sorts of contracts as well.

There are cases where the law infers a guarantee and forces commitments on one party whereas conferring rights to the other indeed when the fundamental elements of a contract do not show. These guarantees are not lawful contracts, but the Court recognizes them as relations taking after a contract and upholds them like a contract.

These promises/ relations are Quasi-contracts. These commitments can moreover emerge due to diverse social relationships.

The core principles behind a Quasi Contract are justice, value, and great inner voice. It is based on the proverb: “No man must grow rich out of another persons’ loss.

Peter and Oliver enter a contract beneath which Peter concurs to provide a basket of fruits at Oliver’s home and Oliver promises to pay Rs 1,500 after consuming all the fruits. However, Peter incorrectly delivers a basket of fruits at John’s home instead of Oliver’s.

When John gets home, he expects that the fruit basket maybe a birthday gift and consumes them.

Although there’s no contract between Peter and John, the Court treats this as a Quasi-contract and orders John to either return the wicker container of fruits or pay Peter.

 Features of a Quasi Contract

·        It is more often than not a right to the money and is for the most part (not continuously) to a liquidated sum of money.

·        The right isn’t a result of an assertion but is forced by law.

·        The right isn’t accessible against everybody within the world but as it were against a particular person(s).

·        Thus, it takes after a contractual right.

Sections 68 – 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 there are five circumstances under which a Quasi-contract comes to exist. Remember, there’s no real contract between the parties and the law forces the legally binding risk due to the unconventional circumstances.

Section 68 – Necessaries Supplied to People Unfit of Contracting

Imagine an individual unfit of entering into a contract like a crazy person or a minor.

In case an individual supply is necessarily suited to the condition in life of such a person, at that point he can get repayment from the property of the unfit person. John could be lunatic.

Peter supplies John, with certain necessaries suited for his condition in life. In any case, John does not have the money or sanity and fails to pay Peter. This is termed as a Quasi-contract and Peter is entitled to repayment from John’s property.

 However, to set up his claim, Peter must demonstrate two things:

1.      John could be a lunatic

2.      The merchandise provided was fundamental for John at the time they were sold/ delivered.

Section 69 – Installment by an Interested Person If an individual pays the money on someone else’s behalf which the other person is bound by law to pay, at that point he is entitled to reimbursement by the other person.

 Peter is a zamindar. He has leased his land at John, a farmer. However, Peter fails to pay the income due to the government. After sending notices and not receiving the installment, the government releases notice for the deal of the land (which is rented to John).

According to Revenue law, once the land is sold, John’s lease agreement is annulled. John does not want to let go of the land since he has worked difficult on the land and it has started yielding good produce. In order to avoid the deal, John pays the government the amount due to Peter. In this situation, Peter is committed to reimburse the said amount to John.

Section 70 – Commitment of Individual enjoying the benefits of a Non-Gratuitous Act.

Imagine an individual legally doing something or conveying something to someone without the purposeful of doing so needlessly and the other individual enjoying the benefits of the act done or goods delivered.

In such a case, the other individual is obligated to pay compensation for the act, or goods received. This compensation can be in cash or the other person can, possibly, restore the thing done or delivered.

 However, the plaintiff must prove that:

1.       The act that’s done or thing delivered was lawful

2.       He did not do so gratuitously

3.       The other individual enjoyed the benefits

Section 71 – Duty of Discoverer of Goods

If an individual finds a product that belongs to somebody else and takes them into his custody, then he needs to follow the following responsibilities:

·        Take care of the products as an individual of normal prudence

·        No right to appropriate the goods

·        Restore the merchandise to the owner (if found)

Peter possesses a flower shop. Olivia visits him to purchase a bouquet but forgets her handbag in the shop.

Tragically, there are no documents in the handbag to help find out her identity. Peter leaves the handbag on the checkout counter assuming that she would return to take it. John, a partner at Peter’s shop, finds the handbag lying on the counter and puts it in a drawer without informing Peter. He finished his shift and went home. When Olivia comes looking for her purse, Peter can’t find it. He is liable for remuneration since he did not take care of the purse which any prudent man would have done.

Section 72 – Money paid by Mistake or Under Coercion If an individual gets money or goods by mistake or under impelling, at that point he is at risk to reimburse or return it.

Peter misjudges the terms of the lease and pays municipal tax incorrectly.

After he realized his botch, he approached the municipal authorities for reimbursement. He is entitled to be repaid since he had paid the money by mistake.

Similarly, cash paid by restraint which includes abuse, extortion or any such implies, is recoverable.


In the case of Hari Smash Seth Khandsari v Commissioner of Sales Tax

The Court also agreed to the truth that, although the term has been avoided in this chapter, this chapter is about the teaching of quasi-contracts. 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.

In the case of Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd

The Court expressed that the obligations which emerge in such situations where one individual is enhanced at the cost of another- the commitment does not drop simply either beneath torts law or contract law. They drop beneath the concept of “restitution or quasi-contracts.”

To summarize, to bring out the concept of Quasi-contracts, three conditions are required to be satisfied as expressed by the Court within the legal proclamation of Mahabir Kishore & others v. the State of MP:

·        There needs to be an unreasonable improvement due to the receipt of a benefit.

·        The enhancement ought to take out at the cost of a few other parties.

·        The maintenance of such improvement is unjust.

Similarities between Contract and Quasi Contract

The result of the contract and quasi-contract is similar.

So far as the claim for damages is concerned, they are very comparable to that of contracts since Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 gives remedies for the breach of quasi-contracts as given for the breach of express contracts in different areas of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Remedies are accessible under quasi-contract beneath the Indian contract act, 1872.

Difference between Contract and Quasi Contract

A quasi-contract can be considered as a valuable contract or a suggestion of law. It is a fictitious contract, pointed towards giving a cure to the distressed party, which isn’t the case in an express contract.

In the case of quasi-contracts, the purposeful of the parties isn’t considered, but within the case of an express contract, the purposeful of the parties is exceptionally vital as, without the intention to enter into an assertion, there would be no contract at all. In the case of a quasi-contract, the obligation of the parties characterizes the contract, which shapes the terms of the contract. But on the other hand, within the case of quasi-contract, the obligations are characterized due to the formation of a contract.

In words of Keener, A quasi-contract is one which has been suggested by the law, and it denotes the nature of evidence through which the wronged party can claim compensation. Though the party who has been enhanced would not set out to expect any commitment, the law will force it.

In an express contract, both parties have broken even with the interests, but in the case of a quasi-contract, the contract comes into being since the intrigue of one party is affected.


As stated above, a quasi-contract isn’t a contract within the pure sense.

It can be considered as an invented contract.

This moreover may be the reason why the statute does not say the term “quasi-contract” expressively, but indirectly covers the concept to prevent out of line improvement.

Hence, the basis of a quasi-contract is very basic that a contract cannot supersede the requirement and sense of justice. When something is done for a person or a thing is delivered to him without a needless deliberate, he is bound to form a compensation or restore the aggrieved party to his past position.