2. Quasi-Contracts — Obligations the Law Creates Without an Agreement
Sections 70, 71, and 72 — covered as their own topics later in this unit — are all specific examples of one bigger idea: sometimes the law makes you pay someone even though you never agreed to anything. This post explains that bigger idea, and the two sections (68, 69) that don't get their own chapter.
The Problem This Topic Solves
Everything covered so far in Contract Law rests on agreement — offer, acceptance, consideration, consensus. But what happens when one person benefits at another's expense with no agreement between them at all? The law refuses to let that benefit simply sit there unpaid for. Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 — grouped under the heading "Of certain relations resembling those created by contract" — create contract-like obligations in exactly these situations, even though no real contract ever existed.
What Is a Quasi-Contract?
A quasi-contract is not a contract at all in the true sense — there is no offer, no acceptance, no meeting of minds. The law simply treats certain relationships as if a contract existed, so that the same remedies (a suit for money) become available. It is a legal fiction created for one purpose: to prevent one person being unjustly enriched at another's cost.
The Underlying Principle — Unjust Enrichment
The Latin maxim behind this whole chapter is nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura — "no one should grow rich at another's loss." If A has received a benefit from B, and it would be unjust for A to keep that benefit without paying for it, the law steps in and imposes an obligation to pay, even without any agreement.
Moses v. Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005 — the foundational English case for this entire area. Lord Mansfield held that where the defendant is under an obligation, from the ties of natural justice, to refund money received, the law implies a promise to repay it — "the gist of this kind of action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money." This is the origin of the "implied promise" reasoning that Sections 68–72 later codify.
Quasi-Contract vs. Contract vs. Tort
| Basis | Contract | Quasi-Contract | Tort |
|---|---|---|---|
| How it arises | Agreement between parties | Operation of law, no agreement | Operation of law, no agreement |
| Consent | Essential | Not required | Not required |
| Purpose | Enforce what parties promised | Prevent unjust enrichment | Compensate for a civil wrong |
| Typical remedy | Damages / specific performance | Restitution of the benefit received | Unliquidated damages |
Claim for Necessaries Supplied — Section 68
If necessaries suited to the condition in life of a person incapable of contracting (a minor, or a person of unsound mind), or of anyone he is legally bound to support, are supplied to him, the person who supplied them is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person. This is not a personal liability on the minor/unsound person themselves — recovery is only against their property.
Illustration (Section 68): A supplies B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to his condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B's property.
This connects directly back to Unit II's rule that a minor's agreement is void — the minor still cannot be personally sued on a contract, but whoever fed, clothed, or housed them is not left with nothing; the law lets them recover from the minor's own property.
Reimbursement of a Person Paying Money Due by Another — Section 69
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.
Illustration (Section 69): B holds land in Bengal on a lease granted by A, the zamindar. The revenue payable by A to the Government being in arrear, his land is advertised for sale by the Government. Under the revenue law, the consequence of such sale will be the annulment of B's lease. B, to prevent the sale and consequent annulment of his own lease, pays the Government the sum due from A. A is bound to make good to B the amount so paid.
Notice the two conditions doing the real work here: the payer must genuinely be interested in the payment (B loses his lease if he doesn't pay), and the amount must be one the other party was legally bound to pay in the first place. Voluntary payment of someone else's debt, with no interest of your own at stake, does not attract Section 69.
- A quasi-contract is a legal fiction — there is no real agreement, only a law-imposed obligation
- The underlying principle is unjust enrichment — no one should be enriched at another's expense without paying for it
- Section 68 — necessaries supplied to an incapable person are recoverable only from that person's property, not personally
- Section 69 — reimbursement is available only when the payer has a genuine interest AND the amount was legally owed by someone else
- Moses v. Macferlan (1760) is the founding English case for the "implied promise to repay" reasoning behind this entire chapter
- Sections 70, 71, and 72 are specific applications of the same unjust-enrichment principle — each gets its own post later in this unit
- Quasi-contractual liability under Section 68 does not make a minor personally liable — this is consistent with, not an exception to, the void-agreement rule for minors
A Practical Example
Ramesh's elderly, mentally incapacitated uncle Suresh lives alone. A local grocer, Kishore, supplies Suresh with food and basic medicines for two months without any written agreement — Suresh being incapable of entering into one. Kishore cannot personally sue Suresh for the price under ordinary contract law (Suresh cannot contract), but under Section 68, Kishore is entitled to be reimbursed out of Suresh's own property, since the supplies were genuine necessaries suited to Suresh's condition in life.
Quick Revision Points
- Quasi-contract = a law-imposed, contract-like obligation, with no real agreement between the parties
- Underlying principle: unjust enrichment — nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura
- Moses v. Macferlan (1760) is the foundational case behind this doctrine
- Section 68 — necessaries supplied to an incapable person: recovery only from that person's property
- Section 69 — reimbursement of a person who pays money another was legally bound to pay, provided the payer had a genuine interest
- Sections 70 (non-gratuitous acts), 71 (finder of goods), and 72 (mistake/coercion) are the same principle applied to three specific situations — each covered separately next
© 2026 NyayaSaral