Instruction:
Question #1. “In a quasi-contract, the promise to pay is always an implication of law and not of fact”. 10 marks (150 words)
Question #2. Who is a finder of goods? Briefly state his rights and obligations. What is the nature of the lien which he has over the goods? 15 marks (250 words)
(Examiner will pay special attention to the candidate's grasp of his/her material, its relevance to the subject chosen, and to his/ her ability to think constructively and to present his/her ideas concisely, logically and effectively).
Question #1. “In a quasi-contract, the promise to pay is always an implication of law and not of fact”. 10 marks (150 words)
Quasi-contracts are a concept under the Indian Contract Act, of 1872, that governs situations where there is no express or implied contract between parties but still imposes an obligation on one party to pay the other party. It is also known as a “constructive contract” or “implied-in-law contract.” This type of contract arises to prevent unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other party. Quasi-contracts are based on the principle of equity and justice, rather than a mutual agreement between the parties.
Anson has written that the term "quasi-contract" is not a happy term. Sir Frederick Pollock has preferred the term 'constructive contract Pollock &Mulla has also remarked, the expression 'quasi-contract' is a misnomer.
Lord Mansfield who is considered to be the real founder of such obligation explained them on the principle that law as well as justice should try to prevent unjust enrichment i.e., enrichment of one person at the cost of another.
Rationale: Theory of Unjust Enrichment: The theory that underpins quasi-contractual responsibilities is still being worked out. Lord Mansfield, widely regarded as the real founder of such obligations, justified them based on the premise that law and justice should strive to prevent "unjust enrichment," or the enrichment of one person at the expense of another. An explanation was given by his lordship in Moses v. Macferlan. In Moses v. MacFerlan, (1760) case, Jacob issued four promissory notes to Moses and Moses indorsed them to MacFerlan, excluding, by a written agreement, his personal liability on the endorsement, even so MacFerlan sued Moses on the endorsement and he was held liable despite the agreement. Moses was thus compelled to discharge a liability which he had excluded and, therefore, sued to recover back his money from MacFerlan. He was allowed to do so. After stating that such money cannot be recovered where the person to whom it is given can 'retain it with safe conscience'.
Theory of Implied in-fact Contracts: After the decision by the House of Lords in Sinclair v. Brougham case, Lord Mansfield’s theory was not considered and the Implied In-fact Contract theory gained a lot of attention. It was declared in that case that liabilities were taken under the premise of a quasi-contract that were against and not within the ambit of the law. It was mentioned that common law recognises just two types of personal actions: those based on contract and tort and that quasi ex-contractu only refers to a hypothetical class of action that is attributed to the defendant by a legal fiction.
In Sinclair v. Brougham, (1914) case, a building society undertook banking business which was outside its objects and therefore, ultra-vires. The society came to be wound-up. After paying-off all the outside creditors, a mixed sum of money was left which represented partly the shareholder's money and partly that of the ultra-vires depositors, but was not sufficient to pay both of them.
The House of Lords allowed ratable (paripassu) distribution of the mixed fund among the claimants, but did not allow any remedy under quasi-contract.
Lord Parker expressly pointed out that if a promise to pay back an ultra-virus loan could be imputed to the company as quasi-contractual obligation, the result would be to validate a transaction which has been declared to be void on the ground of public policy and the law would be enforcing a national contract where an express contract would have been void.
Restoration of theory of Unjust Enrichment: After a long time, it was observed that the implied in-fact contract theory was going against the law and justice and there was a restoration of theory of unjust enrichment. This was due to the decision taken in the case FibrosaSpolkaAkeyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson combe Barbour Ltd. It was observed that the remedies resulting from such obligations are neither contracts nor torts. They belong to a separate category than these two: 'quasi contract or restitution.' The precious notion was also found to be against public policy and in violation of the law. Unjust enrichment demands that the defendant be "enriched" by receiving a "benefit," that this enrichment be "at the expense of the plaintiff," and "that the retention of the enrichment be unjust".
The Indian Contract Act deals with the following quasi-contractual obligations:
Conclusion: The Quasi contracts are the legal fiction created by the common law courts to protect people from the unjust enrichment. This concept has been helpful to maintain the justice and equity prevalent in many cases and works as a helping hand for the courts. Though it doesn’t belong to the two main branches of the common law i.e., contracts and torts, there can be seen characteristics of both in some circumstances. However, the result of both the quasi contracts and contracts are similar. As Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 offers remedies for the breach of quasi-contracts in the same way as the Indian Contract Act, 1872 enables remedies for the breach of express contracts in other sections, the claim for damages is quite similar to that of contracts.
Question #2. Who is a finder of goods? Briefly state his rights and obligations. What is the nature of the lien which he has over the goods? 15 marks (250 words)
Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with the finder of goods. A finder of goods means a person who finds goods that belongs to another and place them into his custody. The finder of the goods holds the same position as that of bailee and he is required to take care of the goods in the same manner as is expected out of bailee under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He is also responsible for all the duties of bailee such as duty to return the goods after the true owner is found. If he refuses to return such goods then he would be made liable for the same.
Rights and Liabilities of a Finder of Goods (SS. 71 & 168-169)
Rights (Ss. 168-169): A finder of goods has the following three rights:
Under Common Law, a sale by the finder is unlawful. However, the section, which is taken from American law, allows such a sale.
Liabilities (S. 71): A finder of goods is subject to the same responsibility as that of a bailee. (S.71) given in Ss. 151-152, 154, 160-163, 166-167.
The following are the five liabilities (or duties) of a bailee :
If a person, other than the bailor, claims goods bailed, he may apply to the Court to stop the delivery of the goods to the bailor, and to decide the title to the goods. (S. 167)
To participate in the answer writing program, Register yourself for the test. Copies will be evaluated only for the registered students. Registration will be closed after the scheduled date.
Step 1 (Theme, Details & Its Topics):
Step 2 (Answer Writing):
Note: Answer sheets without the proper guidelines given above will not be accepted for evaluation.
Step 3 (Copy Evaluation): Copies will be evaluated in the next 72 hours of the test date. After evaluation, copies will be uploaded into your account. During the copy evaluation period, doubt clearing and discussion about the theme or topic of the test with respective mentors of the test will be done in the telegram group.
Step 4 (Mentorship): Evaluated copies will be sent to you via mail and also uploaded into your account on the website. After that a mentorship session for the marks improvement with respective faculty will be conducted on the Google Meet, so that students can get a wider perspective of the topics. Here you can discuss your evaluated copies also with the faculty. Top 5 copies of every test will be shared in the telegram group for reference.
Note: Aspirants who have not written the test can also participate in the mentorship session.
For Updates and Mentorship of the session, you will be notified through SMS or Telegram Group.
Note: You have to write your answers on an A4 size sheet leaving margins on both sides based on UPSC pattern. Mention Your Name on 1st page and Page Number on each page. After writing the answer, Click pictures of each page of your answer sheet, merge them all in a single PDF and upload in the Your Answer Copy section of the same question.
Verifying, please be patient.