Quasi-contract

A '''quasi-contract''' (or '''implied-in-law contract''' or '''constructive contract''') is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "{{Lang|la|Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura}}", which proclaims that no one should grow rich out of another person's loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law.

==History== In common law jurisdictions, the law of quasi-contract can be traced to the medieval form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. In essence, the plaintiff would recover a money sum from the defendant ''as if'' the defendant had promised to pay it: that is, ''as if'' there were a contract subsisting between the parties. The defendant's promise—their agreement to be bound by the "contract"—was implied by law. The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary obligations.<ref>See generally, Sir John Baker, ''An Introduction to English Law History'' (4th ed)</ref>

The form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit'' came to include various sub-forms known as the common money counts. The most important of these for the later development of the law of quasi-contract included: (i) actions for money had and received to the plaintiff's use; (ii) actions for money paid to the defendant's use; (iii) ''quantum meruit''; and (iv) ''quantum valebant''.<ref>See generally, Sir John Baker, ''An Introduction to English Legal History'' (4th ed)</ref>

Quasi-contractual actions were generally (but not exclusively) used to remedy what would now be called unjust enrichment. In most common law jurisdictions the law of quasi-contract has been superseded by the law of unjust enrichment.<ref>See generally, Mitchell et al, ''Goff & Jones Law of Unjust Enrichment'' (8th ed, 2011); Carter et al, ''Mason & Carter's Restitution Law in Australia'' (2nd ed, 2008); Graham Virgo, ''The Principles of the Law of Restitution'' (3rd ed, 2015)</ref>

== Quasi-contract and contract == A quasi-contract is distinct from a contract implied in fact and may be distinguished from an explicitly agreed contract.{{efn|See for example Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, [https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59146bfaadd7b049343074ff Rambo v. South Tama County], 11 January 2008: "This is an action in contract and quasi-contract for services ... After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Rambo on its contract claim and denied recovery on the quasi-contract claim."}} * ''Contract implied in fact.'' A person's assent to be bound by an agreement can be expressed or implied. In the latter case, assuming the requisite formalities for a valid contract are met, there is a perfectly normal contract. The only distinction between a contract arising by express agreement between two people and a contract implied-in-fact is that the latter was recognized by a court drawing inferences from facts proved at trial. When the plaintiff sued on either sort of contract, he was suing in the law of contract in respect of a consensually assumed obligation and her remedy for the defendant's breach was damages. * ''Quasi-contract''. In contrast, quasi-contract refers to situations in which a defendant is bound ''as if'' there were a contract. When the plaintiff sued on such a 'contract' by bringing an action of ''indebitatus assumpsit'', he was not enforcing some consensually assumed obligation, but rather an obligation imposed by law.

==Notes== {{Notelist}}

==References== {{Reflist}}

==Further reading== * ''The Law of Quasi-Contract'' by S. J. Stoljar; Sydney : Law Book Co. of Australasia, 1964

Category:Contract law Category:Law of obligations Category:Legal fictions