A quasi-contract can be imposed by law, for example. B, when a person comes into possession of another person, either by mistake or because of the circumstances, and decides to keep it without paying it. A quasi-contract is a contract that consists on the order of a court and not with the agreement of the parties. Courts create quasi-contracts to avoid the unfair enrichment of a party in the payment of a service dispute. In some cases, a party who has suffered a loss in a business relationship may not be able to recover the loss without proof of a legally recognized contract or agreement. To avoid this unwarranted result, the courts enter into a fictitious agreement in which there is no legally binding agreement. If the court is established or interpreted, there is no doubt that the quasi-contract is enforceable by the parties. As a form of fair judicial remedy, the court can impose a quasi-contract in the law to remedy the injustice by enriching one person to the detriment of another by retaining property they have not legally purchased. According to the laws, quasi-contracts were established in the Middle Ages under an act known in Latin as the assumed indebitatus, which means being in debt or having taken out a debt. This legal principle was the way in which the courts provided one party with payment from the other party, as if there was already a contract or agreement between them.
The defendant`s obligation to be bound by the contract is therefore considered to be implicit in the law. From its earliest uses, quasi-contract was generally imposed to enforce restitution obligations. Quasi-contracts are made possible by the Doctrine of Quantum Meruit (in Latin for ”as much as won”), which allows the courts to involve a contract where there is none. Quantum meruit includes unspoken contracts and quasi-contracts. Courts also use the term quantummeruit to describe the process of determining the amount of money that debtors can recover in a tacit contract. In this hypothetical example, since you had paid for the meal, you did not receive your meal, the other person took your meal, ate it and did not pay it for it, the court can impose a quasi-contract on the other person that requires him to pay you, even if you did not have a contract with the other customer at the restaurant. A quasi-contract may allow less recovery than a tacit contract.
