Quasi contact and theory of unjust

Enrichments

NAME- UTKARSH SINGH

ENROLL NO. L19BALB015
COURSE- BA-LLB (H.)
SECTION- “B”
SUBJECT- SOCIOLOGY
SUBMITTED TO- DR. DEBABRATA BARAL

1|Page
 INTRODUCTION:

If, while riding on a train, a shoe shiner comes, and without us saying anything, starts to
polish our shoes and when they’re done, they ask for some money. Are we obliged to pay
them that amount? Or can we tell them “I did not ask you to polish my shoe anyway!”.
Imagine another situation, where someone else’s Amazon package, with its payment already
done, is left at your door. Do you become all excited and say “YAY! Free Gifts!” or do you
make an effort to find the owner or return the package?

There are certain obligations, specified in the Indian Contract Act, that are not actually
contracts because they miss one or the other elements of a contract, but are still enforceable
in a court of law. Such obligations are called Quasi-contractual obligations. Each of them has
been talked about separately in Sections 68 to 72 (Chapter V) of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. 

Background

It is first important to note that a contract before it becomes so, is an agreement. Therefore,
where there is no agreement, there is no contract. Yet, there are some obligations that do not
have their origin in an agreement. The obligation not to harm another person or his property
(Torts), for instance, the judgments or orders of courts, quasi-contractual obligations, etc.
These obligations are not ‘contracts’ by definition, but they are enforceable in a court of law.

The Principle of Unjust Enrichment

Quasi-contracts are based on the principle of  “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena

jactura”,  which means ‘No man should grow rich out of another person’s loss’. Therefore,
liability in the case of quasi-contractual obligations is based on the principle of ‘unjust
enrichment’. It essentially means that no man should get unjustly enriched at the cost of
another person’s loss. That means no person should gain anything unjustly, when his gaining
such a thing may mean a loss for another person.

2|Page
Features of a Quasi Contract
1. It is usually a right to money and is generally (not always) to a liquated sum of money
2. The right is not an outcome of an agreement but is imposed by law.
3. The right is not available against everyone in the world but only against a specific
person(s). Hence it resembles a contractual right.

Sections 68 – 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 detail five circumstances under which a

Quasi contract comes to exist. Remember, there is no real contract between the parties and
the law imposes the contractual liability due to the peculiar circumstances.

1. S.68 Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his

account: The present section is applicable to persons of unsound mind and minors
and other, if any, disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject.

“Necessaries”: This section is applicable only in cases where necessity of life has been
provided to such an incapable person. Necessaries include articles required to maintain a
particular person in the state, degree and station in life in which he is.
It must be determined with reference to the fortune and circumstance of the particular
person. Therefore it is not enough that they be of a kind which the person may reasonably
want for ordinary use; they will not be necessaries if he is already sufficiently supplied
with things of that kind, and it is immaterial whether the other party knows this or not
herefore whenever a person who is incapable of entering into a contract enters into one
and enjoys the necessities due to that contract so arisen will be under law bound to restore
such benefits enjoyed back to the claimant. The application of this section is subject to the
condition that necessaries of life should be provided and not otherwise.

2. S.69 Reimbursement of person paying money due by another in payment of

which he is interested: This section lays down a wider rule than appears to be
supported by any English authority.

The section reads as: “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.” The principle of this section is that when a person is bound to make a
payment and another person, though not bound is interested in the payment being
made and pays up to safeguard his interest, he is entitled to reimbursement who was
initially liable to pay.

The conditions of liability under this section may be thus stated.

Firstly, the plaintiff should be interested in making the payment. The interest which
the plaintiff seeks to protect must, of course, be legally recognizable. His honest belief
that he has an interest to protect is enough.

3|Page
 Secondly, it is necessary that the plaintiff himself should not be bound to pay.
Thirdly, the defendant should have been bound by law to pay the money. Where a
person is only morally bound is and not legally compellable to pay he will not be
bound to reimburse the party discharging his moral obligation.

Lastly, the plaintiff should have made the payment to another person and not to
himself. Thus the principle of unjust enrichment prevents the defendant from unjustly
enriching himself in a way that he will be bound to pay back the claimant the amount
which has been paid on his behalf although not on his direction.

3. S.70 Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act: This section

creates a liability to pay for the benefits of an act which the doer did not intend to do
gratuitously. One of the conditions is that the person doing the act should have done it
without having any intention of doing it gratuitously. He should have contemplated
being paid from the very beginning.

Secondly the person for whom the act is done is not bound to pay unless he had the
choice to reject the services.

The services so rendered should be without request. Another important point in this
regard is that the services should be lawfully rendered. It has been a point of emphasis
that between the person claiming for compensation and the person against whom it is
claimed, some lawful relationship must exist and it should arise by reason of the fact
that what has been done by the former has been accepted and enjoyed by the latter.
Most important of all is that the person rendering services should not have intended to
act gratuitously.

In Damodra Mudaliar v Secy State for India the defendants were held liable to
make proportionate contribution towards the expenses of the repair of the tank. Lastly,
the defendant should have enjoyed or derived direct benefit from the payment or
services. Where the work done by a railway co. developed the adjoining lands and
consequently the municipality received more taxes, this was held not to be a sufficient
benefit to enable the railway company to recover compensation from the municipality.

4. S. 71 Finder of goods: This section lays down the responsibility of a finder of goods.
The section reads as follows, “a person who finds goodds belonging to another takes
them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.” It basically
means that if a person finds any good belonging to another person he would be
required by law to take care of that good as a bailee of the same.

In other words to treat it as his own and return it to its owner whenever it is asked for.
In this way the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applied when a person finds
someone’s goods.

5. S. 72 Liability of a person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or

under coercion: If money is paid or a thing delivered to a person under coercion or
mistake, he must repay or return it. Thus if A and B jointly owe a sum of money C,

4|Page
 and A pays it, and thereafter, not being aware of payment by A, B also pays the same
amount to C, C must repay the amount to B. In Sri Shiba Prasad Singh v. Maharaja
Srish Chandra Nandi it was made clear that money paid under mistake is
recoverable whether the mistake is of fact or of law. If a mistake either of law or of
fact is established, the assessee is entiled to recover the money and the party receiving
it is bound to return it irrespective of any other consideration. The scope of the word
“mistake” has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Tilokchand Motichand v
Commissioner of Sales Tax21.

“The Payment by Mistake” in section 72 must refer to a payment which was not
legally due and which could not have been enforced: the “Mistake” is on thinking that
the money paid was due when in fact, it was not due.

“Coercion”: The Judicial Committee had laid down that the word “coercion” in this
section is used in its general and ordinary sense and its meaning is not controlled by
the definition of “coercion” in S. 15. Accordingly, where A who had obtained a
decree against B, obtained an attachment against C’s property and took possession of
it to obtain satisfaction for the amount of decree and C on being ousted from his
property paid the sum claimed under protest, C was held entitled to recover the sum as
money paid under coercion within the meaning of this section.22 Where a person who
is charged with a non-compoundable offence is induced to pay money to the
complainant to stifle the prosecution he may recover the money so paid under this
section.2

Defenses to the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:

Where a ground of restitution is established, relief will nevertheless be denied if a

recognized defense or bar is applicable. Restitution will be denied where the
defendant cannot be restored to his original position, the claimant is estopped, or
where public policy precludes restitution. It is also denied where the benefit was
conferred:

a) as a valid gift

b) pursuant to valid common law, equitable or statutory obligation owed by the

claimant to the defendant

c) by the claimant while performing an obligation owed to a third party.

d) in submission to an honest claim, under process of law or a compromise of a

disputed claim.

e) by the claimant acting “voluntarily” or “officiously”.

What Is Unjust Enrichment?

Unjust enrichment” may occur any time one party profits at the expense of another
party. While state laws may vary, unjust enrichment usually refers to benefits that are
received passively, accidentally, or by mistake. In general, unjust enrichment is
considered to be unfair, and laws require a party that has been unjustly enriched to
pay restitution to the other party.

5|Page
 For example, suppose a person enters into a contract with an auto body shop to paint
two of their cars. Suppose that the auto shop completed the painting of one car, but
couldn’t finish the second car. Here, the owner of the cars will be unjustly enriched if
they don’t pay for the paint job of the first car. Likewise, the shop will be unjustly
enriched if they retain payment for two paint jobs, but only complete one. While the
shop may be in breach for not finishing the second car, they are still entitled to
payment for the work they have completed on the first car.

Where Does Unjust Enrichment Commonly Occur?

Unjust enrichment most frequently arises in breach of contract lawsuits. A common

contract situation involving unjust enrichment is where incomplete services are not
paid for. Another common example of unjust enrichment in contracts is where one
party receives property or goods in a way that is considered unfair. Unjust enrichment
can also occur in situations beside a contract claim, such as those involving personal
injuries or criminal violations.
Specifically to contracts, there are methods for recovery in order to prevent unjust
enrichment of one party. The most common equitable remedy for unjust enrichment is
restitution, which is monetary payment for the benefit that was wrongfully obtained
by the other party.

THEORY OF UNJUST ENTRECHMENT

Remedies available for unjust entrecnchment

According to Section 68, if a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he
is legally bond to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his
conditions in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed
from the property of such incapable person. For example, A supplies B, a lunatic, with
necessaries which are necessary for his survival. A is entitled to be reimbursed from the B’s
property

Cases
In the case of Jai Indra Bahadur Singh v. Dilraj Kaur, a minor being bound to support his
sister, money advanced to a minor for marriage of his sister has been held to be necessaries
under this section and also recoverable from the property.

6|Page
In the case of Benaras Bank Limited v. Dip Chand, it was said that a creditor can recover
money advanced to the minor for necessaries and can recover the money out of the minor’s
estate.

According to section 69 a, person whois interested in the payment of money which another
is bound by law to pay and who therefore pays it is entitled to be reimnursed by the other.

Cases

In the case of Dakshina Mohun Roy Vs Saroda mohun roy chowdhry, it washeld that money
paid by a person while in possession of an estate under the decree of the court for
preventing the sale of the estate for recovering the arrears of government revenue may be
recovered by him under this section.

section 70, where a person is lawfully does something for another person, or delivers
anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the
benefit there of, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to
restore, the things so done or delivered. For example, if A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B’s
house by mistake. B treats the goods as if they are of his own and uses that good. Then B is
required to or bound to pay the amount to A for the goods

Argument 3:

It is being contended that so as to profit under CAA, a Hindu should demonstrate that s/he is
a national of Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh and that s/he entered India on/before
December 31, 2014. On this premise, it is being said that somebody who applied in the NRC
and was dismissed won't then have the option to profit the advantage of applying for
citizenship under CAA.

This is a deceptive contention in light of the fact that an unlawful vagrant can never
'demonstrate' that s/he entered India illicitly. Envision the universe of archives that can
demonstrate an individual's entrance into a nation – visas, movement stamps on identification
and air/train/transport tickets. None of these are accessible on account of an unlawful
transient. Actually, the very meaning of excluded people under the MHA notice of September
7, 2015 is people who went into India "without substantial reports including visa or other
travel records" preceding December 31, 2014.

7|Page
The application under the arrangements acquainted by CAA will have with be founded on a
self-affirmation. Something else, let the administration set some things in motion and make
creation of a Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Afghan visa or national ID a condition point of
reference for applying for citizenship under the changed law. Yet, this isn't the expectation by
any means. Consequently, all that a candidate will be required to deliver is proof of having
been in India before the cut-off date. This can be by method for telephone charges, bank
proclamations, school authentications, rent deeds, and so forth gave before this date.

Further, under Section 6B(3) presented by the CAA, any procedure pending against an
individual in regard of illicit movement or citizenship will stand subsided and will not banish
such individual from applying for citizenship under the new law. Consequently, the
procedures identifying with citizenship against individuals from the Hindu, Sikh, Jain,
Buddhist, Parsi or Christian people group who have been kept separate from the NRC will
stand lessened and they will be qualified for apply for citizenship under the arrangements of
the CAA based on a self-announcement. The conclusion is that lone Muslims kept separate
from the NRC will be arraigned for being unlawful transients and at risk for discipline and
expelling.

These three countries are Islamic countries as per their constitution and due to that Muslims
cannot be suppressed in these countries on religious grounds, that’s why this classification on
religious ground is made so that Muslim refugees who came to India for economic reason
Muslims not get benefited because of certain new provisions. But still they can apply for
citizenship but through registration process as Article 6-10 of The Constitution and
government justifies this stratification by citing Article 11 which empowers Parliament to
amend any provision regarding citizenship as it deems fit.

 Argument 4:

There are no two perspectives about the way that in issues of strategy, the State is given space
for choosing its arrangement needs. Preeminent Court decisions are being referred to which
say that the State's approaches can't be tested only on ground of under-consideration. The
main thing to be explained is that the convention of under-consideration has been set
somewhere around the Supreme Court with regards to financial arrangements and in grouping

8|Page
of offenses. The reason for this given by the Supreme Court is that the State must be
permitted space for experimentation.

The regulation of under-consideration has never been applied with regards to human rights or
to bar people dependent on religion. Obviously, resilience for the space to "test" should be a
lot of lower on account of human rights, especially citizenship, which is the option to have
rights.

It is being said that the sound reason for determination of Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Bangladesh is that they were a piece of unified India. The Nehru-Liaquat Pact and our
"civilizational duty" towards the mistreated minorities of unified India are differently being
referred to as the purposes for this determination. Hence, it is essential to bring up that
Afghanistan was verifiably never a piece of unified India.

Then again, Burma (presently Myanmar) really was a piece of British India, and was, truth be
told, secured by the Government of India Act, 1935, which was the antecedent to our
Constitution. It was uniquely in 1937 that Burma was isolated and brought under a different
Burma Office by the British government. Hence, in the event that anything, we have a
civilisational and sacred obligation to the Rohingyas of Myanmar, as the administration of
Myanmar is being pursued for destruction at the International Court of Justice and the district
is confronting the greatest helpful and evacuee emergency on the planet in ongoing past. It is
right now this alleged under-consideration in a law that professes to be to assist aggrieved
minorities of unified India is with no judicious premise or verifiable truth.

While making law there is provision to put residuary section which is much broader in sense
but what happen is that especially in such kind of laws like CAA, government deliberately
omits such section in order to suit its divisive politics. Shashi Tharoor during CAA debate
moved the Private members bill which was rejected, that bill has provision to include other
communities too except Muslims coming from these three countries. Here as per the
government the classification was done because Indian economy have no such potential to
include everyone, by this way government tries to justify the stratification made by him on
the basis of economic condition of the country.

Argument 5:

9|Page
Mahatma Gandhi today stands isolated over good legitimacy of the CAA brought by the
Narendra Modi government and passed by Parliament in December 2019. Both, the
legislature and CAA supporters on one hand and the counter CAA dissenters then again,
conjure Mahatma Gandhi to increase their positions. President Ram Nath Kovind attested in
his location to joint sitting of the two places of Parliament that establishment of the CAA
satisfied the desire of Mahatma Gandhi. “It satisfies me that the two places of Parliament
have satisfied the desire of Mahatma Gandhi by instituting the Citizenship Amendment
Act,".Mahatma Gandhi had stated, “Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan who don't wish to live
there can come to India. It is the obligation of the Government of India to guarantee a typical
life for them”.

Slogans that are raised at against CAA dissents frequently incorporate the azaadi call saying,
Humein chahiye Gandhi wali azaadi.Conjuring of Mahatma Gandhi by nonconformists at
Shaheen Bagh and somewhere else, and appropriation of Gandhian system of peaceful tumult
have put the Modi government on back foot. Many accept that the Modi government has not
turned to police activity to oust dissenters from Shaheen Bagh in the core of the national
capital essentially because of the Gandhian technique Satyagraha - embraced by the
dissidents. Mahatma Gandhi had created Satyagraha, which means constancy for truth, as a
device of obstruction or common non-participation with the British pioneer government
during India's battle for freedom. The counter CAA dissidents state their demonstration at
Shaheen Bagh is current Satyagraha against what they call troublesome law of the Modi
government. The affirmation on Mahatma Gandhi's desire in institution of the CAA by the
Modi government is plainly an endeavour to ruin the Gandhian case of the counter CAA
dissidents. This may leave numerous non-takings an interest resident in a mess about who is
directly in conjuring Mahatma Gandhi to drive legitimacy of the new citizenship law or of the
counter CAA fight. To brace his point further.

Here government made classification which is as per the Gandhian Ideology as Gandhi too
was of the view to protect the interest of the persecuted minorities of Pakistan. This sums up
the view that sometimes government have to take decisive step in order to protect the greater
interest of Human existence and for that argument which are raised against it on the ground
of unreasonable stratification is totally baseless as if the case the case was such so then
various benefits which were extended to various religious minorities stands in confrontation
with the constitution.

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

CAA is as of now in power. This gives Citizenship to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Parsis,
Buddhist, Jains who have relocated to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan
escaping oppression. Muslims are barred since they are not strict minorities in Islamic
nations. The administration is likewise at the same time wanting to actualize National
Register of Citizenship (NRC) the nation-wide to distinguish the unlawful infiltrators and
extradite them to the particular nations. The exercise was long pending and was done
distinctly in Assam. As we all know that Muslims have their own country (Pakistan) where
only people of their community lives in majority then why they need to go in some other
country and have the citizenship. They should go and settle in their own countries.
Sometimes stratification is good. Let us take an example of reservations in which the people
of lower class are given quota so that they gets chance to showcase their talent and it was a
good decision to some extent. The positive part of CAA is that the strict minorities who
endured incalculable torment and abuse in Islamic nations and left the entirety of their things
dreading life moved to India and living as evacuees here are given Citizenship on
humanitarian contemplations.The positive part of NRC is through the overview the outsiders
who have entered our nation by unlawful sources and presenting risk to the certified local
people and overwhelming them are distinguished and to be extradited to particular nations.

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e