Contract or No Contract: A Critical Exposition of Quasi-Contracts in the Pakistani Legal System

Abstract

This paper discusses what is a quasi-contract? What is the doctrine of unjust enrichment? Where did this doctrine briefly originate from? Whether quasi-contracts are incorporated within our law? What are the five scenarios of quasi-contracts that our law discusses? Is there a sixth scenario as well? If so, what is the sixth scenario? Where does our law discuss this scenario? Does it discuss it under the part of our law which deals with quasi-contracts? The main findings of this paper are that that quasi-contracts are those relationships between parties that resemble a contract but are not a contract in the strict sense. It arises not by an agreement by both parties but rather by the order of a court. There are circumstances where the parties’ conduct and the circumstances imply and impose an obligation from one party and the conferment of a right in another body. This is based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment which is a doctrine which is also referred to as an unjust benefit. Under this doctrine, if a person were to receive a benefit at the expense of another, then the other person should be compensated. This doctrine was applied by the Romans and was then applied by the British when the common law legal system was being developed as a result of the emergence of equity. Hence, it is an equitable principle. It was under this doctrine that quasi-contracts were developed by the Anglo judges. These same doctrines were then incorporated within our law, under Chapter V, sections 68-72 of the Act. They are referred to as “certain relations that resemble contracts”. The first is where one party supplies necessaries/necessities to another person who is legally disqualified to enter into a contract or to the ones which said legally disqualified person are bound to take care of. In such a case, they are to be reimbursed from the legally disqualified person’s property. The second one is where one person pays of the liability of another person in which he was interested in paying. In such a case, the person whose liability was paid must reimburse the person who paid off such liability. The third one is where one person does something or delivers something to another person and the other person enjoys the benefit of such act or thing, the other person must reimburse the person who did such an act or delivered such a thing, provided that the said person did not do so with the intention of doing so gratuitously, that is to say, he did not do such an act or deliver such a thing without the intention of not getting something back in return, he did so with the full intention of getting back something in return. The fourth one is that where a person finds goods that do not belong to him, he is subject to the same responsibilities towards the goods as the bailee is towards the bailor in a contract of bailment. The last one is where one person delivers something to another person by mistake or due to coercion, then in such a case, the other person must return said thing or repay the value of it. These five are incorporated under our law. There is another one which is surprisingly not incorporated under Chapter V of the Act but is still incorporated nonetheless, and that too only a part of it. This is quantum meruit. This refers to when one party seeks to recover reasonable remuneration for work done in pursuance of a contract, which has been discharged by the default of the other party and also, when one party seeks to recover compensation for the work he did or service he rendered for a void or invalid contract. It is this latter part which is incorporated within our law but not under the Chapter which provides for quasi-contracts in the first place. The methodology of this paper is doctrinal.