A school district and a roofing company enter into a contract in which the roofing company agrees to install a roof on a school pursuant to an architect's instructions. The roofing company installs the roof and allegedly performs additional work (of which the architect is aware) outside the scope of the contract. The roofing company is allegedly paid for the roof's installation, but not for the additional work. If the additional work is, indeed, outside the scope of the contract, the roofing company has a quasi-contract cause of action and may recover under a theory of quantum meruit.
Quasi contract (or quasi-contract)
Definition
An obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. Also called a contract implied in law or a constructive contract, a quasi contract may be presumed by a court in the absence of a true contract, but not where a contract—either express or implied in fact—covering the same subject matter already exists.
Because a quasi contract is not a true contract, mutual assent is not necessary, and a court may impose an obligation without regard to the intent of the parties. The remedy is typically restitution or recovery under a theory of quantum meruit. Liability is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Illustrative caselaw
See, e.g. Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County, 935 P.2d 294 (Okl. 1997).
See also
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
An arrangement created and enforced by a court to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched by another; also known as an implied-in-law contract. (See: implied contract, unjust enrichment)
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:22 pm
Sally hired a painter to paint her home. Instead of painting Sally's home, the painter accidentally painted Sally's neighbor Dan's home. Dan watched the painter paint his home but said nothing, figuring his home could use a fresh coat of paint. The painter has a quasi-contract cause of action against Dan and may recover under a theory of quantum meruit, because the painter conferred a benefit on Dan, which Dan appreciated, accepted, and retained; it would be inequitable for Dan not to pay the painter.
