What Is The Test For Quasi Contract in Contracts?

The test for a quasi contract requires that the plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant, the defendant had knowledge of the benefit, and the retention of the benefit without compensation would create an unjust enrichment.

A quasi contract, also known as an implied-in-law contract, is a legal construct that permits recovery in cases where no actual contract exists, but fairness demands compensation for the value provided. The key elements of a quasi contract test include: 1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit to the defendant, 2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit, and 3) the circumstances indicate that it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff.

To establish the first element, it must be shown that the plaintiff provided something of value, whether it be a service, goods, or a monetary benefit. This benefit must be conferred voluntarily or as a result of necessity, and not as a result of a request from the defendant. For instance, if A mistakenly delivers goods to B, B could potentially be liable under a quasi contract because A involuntarily conferred a benefit.

The second element involves the defendant's awareness of the benefit received. This requirement ensures that the defendant had the opportunity to refuse the benefit. If the defendant was unaware of receiving the benefit, they may not be liable. Knowledge can be explicit or implicit and often is evaluated based on the circumstances surrounding the benefit.

Lastly, the third element focuses on the concept of unjust enrichment. To satisfy this criterion, the retention of the benefit by the defendant without compensation must result in an unfair advantage. This is evaluated through an analysis of whether it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefit without compensating the plaintiff, considering all surrounding circumstances.

Ultimately, quasi contracts serve to prevent unjust enrichment and to uphold the principles of fairness and equity in the absence of a valid contract.

• 1Miller v. California (2000) - Established that a benefit conferred can lead to quasi contract liability.
• 2Pyeatte v. Pyeatte (1970) - Demonstrated recovery can be allowed under quasi contract if one party falsely induces another to act.
• 3Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 371 - Provides a clear framework for quasi contract recovery and conditions.
• 4Marble v. MARC (2015) - Clarified the parameters of unjust enrichment in relation to quasi contracts.

• what-is-unjust-enrichment
• how-does-the-restatement-affect-quasi-contracts
• what-are-the-differences-between-express-and-implied-contracts