Quasi contracts for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act avoids the term 'quasi-contract' but deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations resembling those created by the contract. The principle of unjust enrichment finds recognition in the Indian Law by this Chapter V. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”

It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The Law Commission of India considered that the provisions made in Sections 68-72 are inadequate. English law of quasi-contract or restitution is to be made applicable in India in respect of cases that fall outside Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act. 

Like contract and tort, there must be a law for the restoration of benefits on grounds of unjust enrichment. There are many circumstances in which a defendant may find himself in possession of a benefit which injustice, he should restore to the plaintiff. Obvious examples are where the plaintiff has himself conferred the benefit on the defendant through mistake or compulsion. To allow the defendant to retain such a benefit would result in his being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense and this, subject to certain defined limits, the law will not allow. Unjust enrichment is simply the name that is commonly given to the principle of justice which the law recognizes and gives effect to in a wide variety of claims of this kind.

Question: The quasi-contracts are not contracts but are given the status of contracts and remedied accordingly. What is incorrect about quasi-contracts?

Passage-VIII

Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act avoids the term 'quasi-contract' but deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations resembling those created by the contract. The principle of unjust enrichment finds recognition in the Indian Law by this Chapter V. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”

It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The Law Commission of India considered that the provisions made in Sections 68-72 are inadequate. English law of quasi-contract or restitution is to be made applicable in India in respect of cases that fall outside Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act. 

Like contract and tort, there must be a law for the restoration of benefits on grounds of unjust enrichment. There are many circumstances in which a defendant may find himself in possession of a benefit which injustice, he should restore to the plaintiff. Obvious examples are where the plaintiff has himself conferred the benefit on the defendant through mistake or compulsion. To allow the defendant to retain such a benefit would result in his being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense and this, subject to certain defined limits, the law will not allow. Unjust enrichment is simply the name that is commonly given to the principle of justice which the law recognizes and gives effect to in a wide variety of claims of this kind.

Question:

English equity law can be applied to the quasi-contract cases given under the Indian Contract Act, 1872-

Passage-VIII

Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act avoids the term 'quasi-contract' but deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations resembling those created by the contract. The principle of unjust enrichment finds recognition in the Indian Law by this Chapter V. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”

It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The Law Commission of India considered that the provisions made in Sections 68-72 are inadequate. English law of quasi-contract or restitution is to be made applicable in India in respect of cases that fall outside Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act. 

Like contract and tort, there must be a law for the restoration of benefits on grounds of unjust enrichment. There are many circumstances in which a defendant may find himself in possession of a benefit which injustice, he should restore to the plaintiff. Obvious examples are where the plaintiff has himself conferred the benefit on the defendant through mistake or compulsion. To allow the defendant to retain such a benefit would result in his being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense and this, subject to certain defined limits, the law will not allow. Unjust enrichment is simply the name that is commonly given to the principle of justice which the law recognizes and gives effect to in a wide variety of claims of this kind.

Question:

Which of the following can be safely inferred as quasi-contracts?

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act avoids the term 'quasi-contract' but deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations resembling those created by the contract. The principle of unjust enrichment finds recognition in the Indian Law by this Chapter V. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”

It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The Law Commission of India considered that the provisions made in Sections 68-72 are inadequate. English law of quasi-contract or restitution is to be made applicable in India in respect of cases that fall outside Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act. 

Like contract and tort, there must be a law for the restoration of benefits on grounds of unjust enrichment. There are many circumstances in which a defendant may find himself in possession of a benefit which injustice, he should restore to the plaintiff. Obvious examples are where the plaintiff has himself conferred the benefit on the defendant through mistake or compulsion. To allow the defendant to retain such a benefit would result in his being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense and this, subject to certain defined limits, the law will not allow. Unjust enrichment is simply the name that is commonly given to the principle of justice which the law recognizes and gives effect to in a wide variety of claims of this kind.

Question: English equity law can be applied to the quasi-contract cases given under the Indian Contract Act, 1872-

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act avoids the term 'quasi-contract' but deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations resembling those created by the contract. The principle of unjust enrichment finds recognition in the Indian Law by this Chapter V. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”

It is a general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The Law Commission of India considered that the provisions made in Sections 68-72 are inadequate. English law of quasi-contract or restitution is to be made applicable in India in respect of cases that fall outside Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act. 

Like contract and tort, there must be a law for the restoration of benefits on grounds of unjust enrichment. There are many circumstances in which a defendant may find himself in possession of a benefit which injustice, he should restore to the plaintiff. Obvious examples are where the plaintiff has himself conferred the benefit on the defendant through mistake or compulsion. To allow the defendant to retain such a benefit would result in his being unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense and this, subject to certain defined limits, the law will not allow. Unjust enrichment is simply the name that is commonly given to the principle of justice which the law recognizes and gives effect to in a wide variety of claims of this kind.

Question: The principle of unjust enrichment is an outcome of which of the following?

 Palak accidentally receive a package of expensive electronics meant for Disha  and Disha demand palak to return it without reimbursing palak for the shipping costs. Can palak claim restoration through quasi-contract?

A provides B with professional advice  during a casual conversation, and B later uses that advice successfully. Can A request payment for their advice?