QUASI-CONTRACTS

QUASI-CONTRACTS
Quasi contracts are the contracts which are not

founded on actual promises. It is a kind of contract by which one party is bound to pay money in consideration something done or suffered by the other party. Basis : no man should grow rich out of another person's loss.

Cases deemed as Quasi Contracts

1. Claims for necessaries 2.

3.

4. 5.

supplied Payment by an interested person Obligation of a person enjoying benefit of nongratuitous act Responsibility of finder of goods Money paid by mistake or

1. Claims for necessaries supplied

Section 68 conditions If a person incapable of entering into a contract

Or anyone whom he is legally bound to support

is supplied by another person with necessaries

suited his condition in life, the supplier is entitled to recover the price from the property of the incapable person. Example: A supplies the wife and children of B, a lunatic with necessaries suitable to their condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B's property.

Claims for necessaries supplied contd..

A

contract by a minor is wholly void and unenforceable. He cannot even ratify it on majority. An exception to this rule is section 68 , In order to make an infant liable for necessaries supplied, the plaintiff must prove, (1) that the goods supplied were necessary for Supporting a person in his position, and (2) that the infant had not already a sufficient supply of these necessaries. The term necessaries is not confined to goods. It can include other things such as good teaching and instruction the remedy is not personal but against the estate only

2. Payment by all interested person (Section 69)

Following conditions must be satisfied.

A person must by law be bound to pay some money. 2. Another person must be interested in the payment of that money. 3. The other person must have paid the money because of such interest. Examples: (a) As goods were wrongfully attached to realise the arrears of Gouernment revenue due by B. A pays the dues to save his property. He is entitled to recover the amount from B. [Tulsa Kunwar v. Jageshar Prasad (1906)
1.

3. Obligation of a person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act (Section 70)

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 to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore the thing so done or delivered. for example :A, a tradesman leaves goods at B's house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them.

leading case on the point is(Section 70)

DAMODAR

MUDALIAR v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (1894) Government carried out repairs to an irrigation tank, owned by the Government with a zamindar and sued the zaminindar for contribution in respect of repairs expenses it was held that Government in carrying out the repairs had acted lawfully and had not intended to carry them out gratuitously and that the zamindar who enjoyed the benefit of the repairs was liable to pay compensation.

4.Responsibility of finder of goods (Section 71)

person who finds goods belonging to another and

takes them into his custody, is having the same responsibility as a bailee finder of goods is bound to take as much care of the goods found as a man of prudence would take of his own goods under similar circumstances. The finder, however, can retain the goods in the following cases. (i) Where the thing found is in danger ; (ii) Where the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found out; (iii) Where the owner is found out, but refuses to pay lawful charges of the finder; (iv) Where the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two-thirds of the value of thing found.

5. Money paid by mistake or under coercion (Section 72)

A person to whom money has been paid

or anything delivered by mistake or under

coercion, must repay or return it. Example: A person purchased a car at a price which it was represented by the seller to be controlled price, but afterwards the vendee came to know that he paid more than controlled price, upon the false representation of the seller. It was held that the excess payment was a payment made by mistake and the vendee could recover [Lakshman Prasad & Sons u. S. V. Kamalba AIR 1960 Mad. 335].

Quantum meruit
as much as the party doing the service has

deserved. For the application of this doctrine two conditions must be fulfilled. (1) It is only available if the original contract has been discharged. (2) The claim must be brought by a party not in default.

The claim for quantum meruit arises in the following cases

(i) When an agreement is discovered to be void or when a contract becomes void. (ii) When something is done without any intention to do so gratuitously. (iii) Where there is an express or implied contract to render services but there is no agreement as to remuneration. (iv) When one party abandons or refuses to perform the contract. (v) Where a contract is divisible and the party not in default has enjoyed the benefit of part performance. (vi) When an indivisible contract for a lump sum is completely performed but badly, the person who has performed the contract can claim the lump sum; but the other party can make a deduction for bad work.