Case Study based on Quasi Contracts (Section 72)

CASE- Mr. Confused went to the market to buy a Car, being prejudiced regarding the price of the car he mistakenly paid to the seller a sum of Rupees 3 Lakh while the actual price payable was of rupees 2.50 Lakh only; on discovering this foolishness of himself, Mr. Confused asked the seller to return the undue sum of rupees 50 thousand but he refused by saying that- “ Once gone, forever gone”. Mr. Confused is really confused! Advice him. 

Case Study based on Quasi Contracts(Section 71)

Case-  Raman while roaming in a park found a Watch there which seemed to be pretty expensive, Since no one was around and Raman was in need of a watch, he kept the same inside his pocket. Tejas; the original owner of the watch was finding the watch in the park desperately, but he was unsuccessful in his attempts. One day, while a morning Jog Tejas saw his lost watch on the wrist of Raman and asked him to return the same after providing sufficient proof of original ownership. But Raman arrogantly refused to return the watch by saying that he had found the watch so now it belongs to him, Write your noting on this case in the Light of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Case Study based on Quasi Contracts (Section 68)

CASE – A Minor “Naughty” who had enough assets to fulfill his obligations bought eatables to consume as lunch from a mess and refused to pay on the basis of the contention that being a minor he was not bound towards any contractual liability, Mess owner is finding himself cheated and is asking you for an advice in this case, Explain his rights to him.

Salient Features of Quasi Contractual Rights

1. It does not arise from any agreement of the parties concerned, but it is imposed by the law over one or both of the parties.
2. It is a right which is available not against the entire world, but against particular person(s) only.

Case Study based on Quasi Contracts (Section 70)

CASE – X was going to theatre driving his Car. When he reached near the theatre, he saw a parking lot and  thinking that it would be a free parking provided by he theatre authority, the parked his car there and collected the ticket. The parking operator had nothing to do with the theatre and without knowing that X was under a mistake, he let him park his car in the lot in lieu of some consideration. When X returned from the theatre, and went to get his car, he was asked by the parking lot operator for the parking charges, but X refused to pay anything and contended that he was under an illusion that the parking was free. Comment whether the parking operator would be legally entitled for any consideration from X ?

QUASI CONTRACTS | Section 68 - 72

A Quasi Contract refers to a contractual obligation imposed by law on the promisor.

It bears the same effect as of a valid contract.

Quasi contracts are based on notion of natural justice and equity, these are obligations which arise due to conscience and are subsequently verified by law so as to be legally enforceable.Various types of Quasi contracts as given in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 are as follows -

What is Delegation ?

Delegation is less of a technical term and it is much about how the interpreter perceives it.....

But when the definition is to be written for any exam, widely accepted definition is -

It is the assignment of a part of a manager's work to others(usually subordinates) along with both; the responsibility and the authority to perform the job. In other words, delegation is the formal assignment to another person of formal authority and responsibility for carrying out specific activities

Case Study based on Quasi contracts (Section 69)

CASE - A landlord lends his premises to a tenant for a term of 2 years. The tenant unaware of the fact that the electricity bill is due for payment for last 2 months for the said premises, takes the same on rent.After sometime the tenant receives a letter from the electricity department regarding the due bills asking to pay the same within 2 days or else the electricity connection will be discontinued. The tenant without asking the lender pays the bill. When the tenant asks the landlord for reimbursement for the amount paid, he refuses to do so. Landlord contends that he had no intentions to pay the bills, and the tenant had no duty towards the payment of bill. Discuss whether the contention of landlord is right and whether the tenant get any legal rights against the landlord?