Contract Law · Remedies and Quasi-Contracts

Quasi-Contracts

Learn the five restitutionary obligations in Sections 68 to 72 and apply unjust enrichment without inventing an implied agreement.

6 min readReviewed by Advocate Aditya Sharma
Sections 68 to 72

In one line

A quasi-contract is an obligation imposed by law to prevent one person from unjustly retaining a benefit at another's expense.

After this note, you should be able to

  • Match facts to the correct provision from Sections 68 to 72.
  • Apply the elements of a non-gratuitous benefit under Section 70.
  • Distinguish obligation imposed by law from an implied-in-fact contract.

The five statutory obligations

Each provision has its own conditions, so begin with classification.

Section 68: necessaries
A supplier of necessaries to an incapable person may be reimbursed from that person's property.
Section 69: interested payment
A person interested in paying money which another is legally bound to pay may obtain reimbursement.
Section 70: non-gratuitous act
Lawful non-gratuitous work or delivery must be compensated when the other person enjoys the benefit.
Section 71: finder of goods
A finder who takes goods into custody has responsibilities similar to those of a bailee.
Section 72: mistake or coercion
Money paid or a thing delivered by mistake or under coercion must be repaid or returned.

Why the law intervenes

The obligation is restitutionary and does not depend on consent.

The core concern is whether the defendant received and retained a legally recognized benefit at the claimant's expense without a valid basis for keeping it.

Do not label every unfair situation a quasi-contract. Apply the text of the relevant section, available defences and any special statutory refund scheme.

Work through the facts

Illustration

Facts

A contractor lawfully completes emergency flood barriers requested by a public authority. The formal contract is unenforceable, but the authority knowingly uses the completed barriers.

Likely result

If the work was non-gratuitous and the authority enjoyed the benefit, Section 70 may require reasonable compensation despite the invalid contract.

What to learn

Section 70 enforces restitution for an accepted benefit, not the invalid bargain itself.

Cases with a purpose

Landmark judgments

Learn the rule and where to use it. A case name without its legal function adds very little to an answer.

State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons

Further reading

AIR 1962 SC 779

Principle: Section 70 requires a lawful act, absence of gratuitous intention and voluntary enjoyment of the benefit by the recipient.

Use in an answer: Use it as the leading three-part test for non-gratuitous benefits.

Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf

Further reading

AIR 1959 SC 135

Principle: Section 72 extends to money paid under mistake of law as well as mistake of fact, subject to the governing legal and statutory context.

Use in an answer: Use it for mistaken payments while checking any special refund regime and unjust-enrichment limitation.

For a 10-mark answer

Answer structure

  1. State that the obligation is imposed by law, not agreement.
  2. Choose the exact provision from Sections 68 to 72.
  3. Apply every statutory condition to the facts.
  4. Measure restoration or reasonable compensation without enforcing an invalid contract.

Common mistakes

  • Calling quasi-contract an implied consensual contract.
  • Using Section 70 without proving enjoyment of benefit.
  • Imposing personal liability on a minor under Section 68.

Before you close the tab

Quick revision

  • Sections 68 to 72 contain distinct restitutionary obligations.
  • Section 70 needs lawful, non-gratuitous benefit and enjoyment.
  • A finder of goods has bailee-like duties.
  • Section 72 covers qualifying mistaken or coerced payments.

Test yourself

  1. Which section governs necessaries?
  2. What are the three Section 70 conditions?
  3. Is a quasi-contract based on mutual consent?

Short answers

Frequently asked questions

Is a quasi-contract a real contract?

Not in the consensual sense. The law imposes the obligation to prevent unjust retention of a benefit.

Can Section 70 apply against the government?

Yes, when its requirements are met. B.K. Mondal applied the principle despite the absence of an enforceable formal government contract.

Primary sources

This is an educational study note. Always read the bare provision and the full judgment before relying on a proposition in research or practice.