Void Agreement And Quasi Contract
The purpose of the contract is to prevent one party from taking advantage of the situation at the expense of the other party. This regime may be imposed if goods or services are accepted by a party but not solicited. Acceptance then creates an expectation of payment. It has been found that these contracts and quasi-contracts are of practical importance. The concept relates to the agreement and commitments between the parties. Quasi-contracts are different from contracts that are usually expressed, since they contain each provision in words, while in the latter, the conditions derive from the conduct of the parties. A quasi-contract is a retroactive agreement between two parties who have no prior obligations to each other. It is created by a judge to correct a circumstance in which one party acquires something at the expense of the other. A quasi-contract is a court document intended to prevent a party from benefiting from an unfair amount at the expense of another party, when there is no contract between them.
Why were quasi-contracts not called quasi-contracts in the ICA in 1872? In the case mentioned above, C has benefited from the benefit of the goods, but does not pay for them, and B must bear the full cost. In such cases, the courts order the reimbursement of C to B, because he has benefited from the advantage of the goods. The intention of the courts to impose such obligations on the person who receives the benefit of goods or any amount is to induce the same person to compensate the other person who is the supplier of the goods as well. It should be noted that the Indian Contract, 1872, did not use the words «quasi-contracts», but some relationships that resemble contracts, according to sex 68 of the law. This indicates that these are not contracts, but contracts where the law provides for certain obligations. The quasi-treaty is based on the fact that the formality of the Treaty cannot derail the demands of justice. If something has been done in favour of another person without waiting for his formal authorization and the completion of other formalities, the person receiving the benefit must compensate the other party for the difficulties and costs incurred. A classic quasi-agreement can result from the delivery of a pizza to the wrong address, that is, not to the person who paid for it. If the person at the wrong address does not make the mistake and keeps the pizza instead, it could be seen that he has accepted the food and is therefore forced to pay for it. A court could then decide to establish a quasi-contract requiring the recipient of the pizza to reimburse the costs of the food to the party who bought it or to the pizzeria if he then delivered a second cake to the buyer.
Restitution, ordered under the quasi-treaty, is aimed at finding a fair solution to the situation. Quasi-contracts are not concluded by implicit words, but on the basis of the conduct of the parties. It seems unfair that the law that implies a promise to someone whose statements refute any intent, but this practice still works. Research shows that contracts and quasi-contracts are very different. These are not contracts, but obligations that the law imposes on someone to avoid an unjustified advantage for one person to the detriment of another. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 covers such obligations under Chapter V under the title «OF CERTAIN RELATIONS RESEMBL THOSE CREATED BY CONTRACT», but the Act does not contain the term «quasi-contract». . . .