"What do you understand by a quasi-contract? Under what circumstances does it arise according to the Indian Contract Act, 1872?"

Quasi Contracts: Under certain special circumstances, obligation resembling those created by a contract are imposed by law although the parties have never entered into a contract. Such obligations imposed by law are referred to as ‘Quasi-contracts’. Such a contract resembles with a contract so far as result or effect is concerned but it has little or no affinity with a contract in respect of mode of creation. These contracts are based on the doctrine that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act,1872, the relationship of quasi contract is deemed to have come to exist in five different circumstances. In none of these cases there comes into existence any contract between the parties in the real sense. Due to peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, the law imposes in each of these cases the contractual liability. (i) Claim for necessaries supplied to persons incapable of contracting (Section 68): If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person. To establish his claim, the supplier must prove not only that the goods were supplied to the person who was minor or a lunatic but also that they were suitable to his actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery. (ii) Payment by an interested person (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. (iii) Obligation of person enjoying benefits of non-gratuitous act (Section 70): In term of section 70 of the Act “where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to pay compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered”. It thus follows that for a suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove: (i) that he had done the act or had delivered the thing lawfully; (ii) that he did not do so gratuitously; and (iii) that the other person enjoyed the benefit. (iv) Responsibility of finder of goods (Section 71): ‘A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to same responsibility as if he were a bailee’. Thus, a finder of lost goods has: (i) to take proper care of the property as man of ordinary prudence would take (ii) no right to appropriate the goods and (iii) to restore the goods if the owner is found. (v) Money paid by mistake or under coercion (Section 72): “A person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it”. In all the above cases the contractual liability arose without any agreement between the parties.