Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • 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 liabiliti

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?

 

 

Option: 1

Quasi-contracts are dealt with under the head of relations arising from transactions that are not contract per se

 


Option: 2

The basic idea behind the constitution of quasi-contracts is to compensate specific unjust enrichment transactions

 


Option: 3

The Courts can rely on principles of natural justice if statutory provisions fall short of an adequate remedy

 


Option: 4

Quasi-contracts must have all the elements of the contracts

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

A quasi-contract is not a true contract it is the creation of law and given status of contracts. A quasi-contract does not have to possess essential requirements of an ordinary contract like obtaining express assent or express terms and conditions in a written binding instrument. The very basis of the formation of the quasi-contracts is that though they lack the essential requirements to be a contract even then for the sake of justice certain transactions are given special protection.

Posted by

manish painkra

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 counselling delayed: Consortium of NLUs to approach SC seeking relief against Delhi HC order
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Result: Delhi HC refuses to intervene in order for revision
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 results likely to be revised; Delhi high court orders revision of merit list

Latest Question