Quasi-contracts II: finder of goods (ss. 71, 168-169), money paid by mistake or under coercion (s. 72) and quantum meruit
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
The second half of Chapter V: the finder of goods, who is made a bailee by s. 71 and given a lien, a right to reward and a limited right of sale by ss. 168-169; and s. 72, under which money paid or a thing delivered by mistake or under coercion must be returned, the section that produced Kanhaiya Lal (mistake of law) and Mafatlal Industries (unjust enrichment as a defence to tax refunds). The lecture ends with the doctrine of quantum meruit, when it lies and when it does not, from Planche v. Colburn and Craven-Ellis v. Canons to ss. 65 and 70, and with the limits of the quasi-contractual remedy. Quantum meruit was asked in 2018-19 and 2025-26.
Objectives
- Explain the duties of a finder of goods under s. 71 and his rights under ss. 168 and 169.
- Explain s. 72, including the meaning of mistake (of fact and of law) and of coercion, with Kanhaiya Lal and Mafatlal Industries.
- Explain the doctrine of quantum meruit and list the situations in which it lies and in which it does not.
- Relate quantum meruit to ss. 65 and 70 of the Contract Act and distinguish it from damages.
- State the limits of the quasi-contractual remedy.
Slides
- Section 71: the finder of goods is a bailee
- Sections 168 and 169: the finder's rights
- Section 72: money paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion
- Kanhaiya Lal: mistake of law, and the English contrast
- Mafatlal Industries: unjust enrichment as a shield
- Quantum meruit: meaning and basis
- When quantum meruit lies: Planche v. Colburn and the five situations
- When quantum meruit does not lie
- Limits of the quasi-contractual remedy
- How the examiner asks it
Loading the lecture…