Quasi-contracts I: the idea, unjust enrichment, and ss. 68-70 (necessaries, reimbursement, benefit of a non-gratuitous act)

LUG-103 Law of Contract including Specific Relief Act & Sale of Goods Act, Unit III: Quasi-contracts (ss. 68–72, 168 & 169). · LLB · 60 min

Chapter V of the Contract Act (ss. 68-72) is headed 'Of certain relations resembling those created by contract'. The Act never uses the words quasi-contract or unjust enrichment, but that is what the chapter is about: obligations the law imposes without any agreement so that nobody keeps a benefit he ought in justice to pay for. This lecture explains the idea from Lord Mansfield's judgment in Moses v. Macferlan, the features of a quasi-contract, the three elements of unjust enrichment, and the first three heads: necessaries (s. 68), payment of money due by another (s. 69) and the benefit of a non-gratuitous act (s. 70), with Exall v. Partridge, Govindram Seksaria, B.K. Mondal and Damodara Mudaliar. It is a 7 or 10 mark question in nearly every paper.

Objectives

Explain the meaning and nature of a quasi-contract and why the Act calls it a relation resembling a contract.
State the three elements of unjust enrichment and trace the idea from Moses v. Macferlan to Mahabir Kishore.
Explain ss. 68, 69 and 70 with their illustrations and their conditions.
Apply B.K. Mondal's three conditions under s. 70 to a problem involving the Government.
Distinguish a quasi-contractual obligation from a contract and from a tort.

Slides

'Certain relations resembling those created by contract'
Moses v. Macferlan: Lord Mansfield and the ties of natural justice
Nature and features of a quasi-contract
Unjust enrichment: the three elements
Section 68: necessaries supplied to a person incapable of contracting
Section 69: payment of money due by another
Section 70: benefit of a non-gratuitous act
B.K. Mondal and Damodara Mudaliar: s. 70 at work
The limits of s. 70
Indian v English law, and the five heads together
How the examiner asks it

Loading the lecture…