Contents

Talk:Quasi-contract

	This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I have heard this described as a legal remedy and also as an equitable remedy (from different sources). Any idea which is more accurate?

A quasi-contract is a legal remedy and can be traced to Moses v. Macferlan, 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (1760), when Lord Mansfield, sitting on the King's Bench (a common law court), gave restitution to the plaintiff after the chancery court denied his claim. The origins of the term may have led to the confusion between law and equity, particularly from this quote: "the law implies a debt and gives this action, founded in the equity of the plaintiff's case, as if it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu' as the Roman law expresses it.)" --Whitenoise101 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original page was incorrect. A quasi-contract is neither a legal nor an equitable 'remedy'. An action for money had and received (a quasi-contractual action) has been described as being analogous to a bill in equity (i.e., to a suit in the Court of Chancery), and was so described in Moses v Macferlan. But it was and remains a common law cause of action. Some confusion over this may derive from the fact that Australian jurisdictions have emphasised the equitable influences upon the quasi-contractual action of money had and received. But a quasi-contract is not an equitable remedy, nor is it a legal remedy: it simply refers to a fictional contract that was recognised by common law courts so as to bring about a just outcome. Jason246xy 20 March 2016

implied in fact is really an evidence doctrine and is markedly different from other issues

   Yes, best to keep them separate. I may expand, because there is plenty out there. But the distinction between implied in fact and implied in law is important...the latter is a totally different legal theory and seriously affects your potential remedies. Gibbsale 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

An implied contract is an actual contract, however its based on the conduct of the parties rather than their express consent (such as I accept). For example, X offers to paint Y's house for $500. Y doesn't say anything but watches X paint the house. Y's conduct indicates that he consented to the painting of the house. --Corrie2723 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no support for merging these articles, so I am removing the tag. I also feel they are separate topics and merely share a similar name. Lagringa 06:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These problems have probably been resolved by subsequent edits to the article. The article now makes more explicit the distinction between a contract implied in fact and a quasi-contract. Jason246xy

Although there is no written contract for most casual jobs, this is not an example of a quasi-contract, but rather of an unwritten contract. Eiad77 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction ends with, "The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary" That's it, no noun for "restitutionary" to modify and no closing punctuation. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]