Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour LTD (1943) AC 32

This document discusses the legal concept of quasi-contracts or unjust enrichment. It explains that quasi-contracts are not true contracts because they lack consent, but rather are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The document outlines that quasi-contracts are considered a third category of law, distinct from contract and tort law. They aim to achieve a just result by allowing recovery of money or property from one party to another.

Uploaded by

Naveen Sihare
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
59 views2 pages

Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour LTD (1943) AC 32

This document discusses the legal concept of quasi-contracts or unjust enrichment. It explains that quasi-contracts are not true contracts because they lack consent, but rather are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The document outlines that quasi-contracts are considered a third category of law, distinct from contract and tort law. They aim to achieve a just result by allowing recovery of money or property from one party to another.

Uploaded by

Naveen Sihare
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called

unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or
some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep 1These are
different from remedies in contract or in tort. Under the English Law they now fall within a
distinct third category of restitution.2

A quasi contract belongs to an entirely different legal category, having nothing to do with
genuine contracts, express or implied. These are a heterogeneous collection of cases having little
in common than the fact that one person is entitled to recover money or property from the other
in order that a just result should be reached. Such a right does not depend upon agreement or
promise.

A contract implied in law or a quasi contract is not a real contract or as it is called, a consensual
contract. A quasi-contractual cause of action involves an alleged promise to pay, which is
purely fictitious. This promise is imposed by implication of law, apart from and without regard
to the probable intention of the parties, and sometimes even against the clear expression of
dissent. Strictly these ‘constructive contracts’ are not true contracts at all, since the essential
element of consent is absent. The expression quasi-contract is truly a misnomer; for it has little
or no affinity with the contract. The Roman lawyers explained these as misfits. Justinian refers to
‘those obligations which do not originate, properly speaking in contract but, which as they do not
arise from a delict, but seem to be quasi-contractual.’ This Act has avoided the expression, and
simply calls these relations ‘certain relations resembling those created by contract.’ Such
‘constructive contracts’ do not have any real similarity to terms implied into contract by law; the
latter are only implied into an actual contract brought into existence by the ordinary principles
for formation of agreements.

In such cases the liability is said to exist independent of the agreement, and rests upon the
equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. Quasi contracts give rise to a situation where an
obligation or duty is cast upon the parties by law, but not by the terms of the contract to which

1
Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1943) AC 32
2
Ibid.
they have given assent.3Quasi contracts or restitution has been placed as a third category of law
not founded upon contract or tort.4

3
State of Punjab v. Hindustan Development Board Ltd. (1960) 2 Punj. 676
4
Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh  (1968) 3 SCR 214

You might also like