Talk:Quasi-contract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quasi-contract

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)

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)

These are very different

A quasi-contract is not a contract at all-- it is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment when one party has benefited to the detriment of another. Its often used when there is an unenforceable contract

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)

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)