A quasi-contract is not contract at all. It is obligation which law creates. Amplify and indicate quasi-contracts recognised by Indian Contract Act.

A quasi-contract is indeed not a contract in the traditional sense, which arises from agreement. Instead, it is an obligation that the law creates and imposes under certain circumstances.

Here's an amplification of this concept and the quasi-contracts recognized by the Indian Contract Act:

1. Nature of Quasi-Contracts: Not Based on Agreement

   • A contract is fundamentally defined as an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement is made up of an offer and its acceptance.

   • Quasi-contracts, however, do not arise out of an agreement between the parties. They are described as "manifestly not based upon consent".

   • The legal obligations under quasi-contracts are imposed by law without offer and acceptance.

   • They are legal constructs addressing situations where one party benefits unfairly at the expense of another, even without a prior agreement. The underlying principle, as articulated by Lord Mansfield, is to prevent "unjust enrichment"—that is, preventing one person from being enriched at the cost of another or from retaining money or a benefit derived from another. They aim to rectify unjust gains and losses.

   • "Quasi-contract" is a legal obligation that is not a contract because it does not arise out of agreement.

   • Although traditionally they were sometimes explained by the theory of an "implied contract", this restricted the scope of relief. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, avoids the term "quasi-contract" and instead deals with these obligations under the heading "Certain relations resembling those created by contract". This statutory approach provides clear authorization for courts to grant relief without being limited by theoretical considerations.

2. Quasi-Contracts Recognized by the Indian Contract Act (Sections 68-72) The Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically deals with five such obligations in Chapter V (Sections 68 to 72), which are known as Quasi-Contracts or Constructive Contracts under English law. These include:

   • Section 68: Claim for Necessaries Supplied to Person Incapable of Contracting

     • Provision: Section 68 permits reimbursement to a person who supplies "necessaries" suitable to the condition in life of a person who is incapable of making a contract (like a minor or a lunatic), or necessaries to someone whom he is legally bound to support.

     • Explanation: This duty to reimburse does not arise from a valid contract with the minor or lunatic, as a minor's agreement is void ab initio. It is a quasi-contractual obligation recognized by law. The liability is attached to the minor's or incapable person's property or estate, not personally. Reimbursement is permitted from the property or estate.

     • Relevant Points: Section 68 permits reimbursement if (i) necessaries are supplied, (ii) to a person incapable of contracting (e.g., minor, lunatic), or (iii) to a person dependent upon such person. The liability is re (against the thing/estate) and not consensu (by consent).

     • Caselaw Mentioned: While Mohoribibee v Dharmodas Ghose [(1903) 30 Cal 539] established that a minor's agreement is absolutely void, Section 68 carves out an exception for necessaries, allowing recovery from the minor's estate. The liability for necessaries is quasi-contractual under Section 68 and limited to the infant's property.

   • Section 69: Payment by an Interested Person

     • Provision: Section 69 deals with the case where a person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.

     • Explanation: The person making the payment must have an interest in doing so. It is not necessary for them to have a legal proprietary interest in the property related to the payment, though this is often the case. The payment must be something the other person was legally bound to pay.

     • Caselaw Mentioned: The phrase "bound by law to pay" was interpreted by the Privy Council in Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v State of Gondal (AIR 1950 PC 99), where the Maharaja was held bound by law to pay.

   • Section 70: Obligation of Person Enjoying Benefit of Non-Gratuitous Act

     • Provision: Section 70 imposes an obligation on a person for whom something is lawfully done or delivered without the intention of doing so gratuitously, and who enjoys the benefit thereof, to make compensation to the person doing the act or delivering the thing.

     • Explanation: The act must be done or the thing delivered lawfully, the person doing it must not intend to act gratuitously, and the other person must enjoy the benefits. The word "lawfully" indicates that the object or consideration is not forbidden by Section 23 of the Act. Acceptance and enjoyment of the benefit create a lawful relationship giving rise to this obligation.

     • Relevance to Government Contracts: This section is particularly relevant for work done for the government that doesn't comply with formal requirements under Article 299(1) of the Constitution. An award of compensation under Section 70 in such cases is seen as a mode of preventing unjust enrichment rather than enforcing a contract.

     • Caselaws Mentioned:

       • State of West Bengal v B.K. Mondal & Sons (AIR 1962 SC 779): The Supreme Court held that the requirement of government paying for benefits enjoyed, even without fulfilling Article 299 formalities, was not unlawful in the context of Section 70. The section applies where work is done at an oral request not amounting to a valid contract.

       • Indu Mehta v State of U.P. (AIR 1987 All 309): An advocate rendering services as Astt. Govt. Council was entitled to fees under Section 70 even if the appointment was void.

       • Where contractors performed construction/work on oral requests for the State or Municipality; held liable under Section 70 despite the lack of a valid contract due to procedural non-compliance.

   • Section 71: Responsibility of Finder of Goods

     • Provision: Section 71 deals with the responsibility of a person who finds goods belonging to another.

     • Explanation: It implies a duty on the finder to take care of the goods and restore them to the true owner, preventing the unjust enrichment that would occur if the finder simply kept them.

   • Section 72: Liability of Person to Whom Money is Paid, or Thing Delivered, by Mistake or Under Coercion

     • Provision: Section 72 states that a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.

     • Explanation: This section directly reflects the principle of preventing unjust enrichment. If someone receives money or goods due to a mistake, keeping it would amount to unjust enrichment, and the law imposes the obligation to return it. Similarly, obtaining something under coercion is not based on valid consent, and the law requires restitution.