Intern
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
There are many situations in which the law requires that a certain person be required to comply with an obligation, although he has not broken any contract or committed any tort. Therefore, when A leaves certain goods at B’s house by mistake, the latter is bound to restore them. Such obligations are called quasi-contractual obligations. In such contracts, there is no contract between both parties, but the law deems such obligations as contracts. Quasi contracts arises when one person has received a benefit, which the law regards as belonging better to another and compels the former to account for such benefit through compensation. The essentials for the formation of a quasi contract are:
• The defendant has been enriched by receiving the benefit,
• The enrichment is at the cost of the plaintiff, and
• The retention of this enrichment is unjust.Ss. 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act deal with these types of quasi-contracts:
1. Necessities supplied to a person who is incapable of contracting or on his account. Sec. 68,
2. Reimbursement of a person paying money which is due by another. Sec. 69,
3. Liability of a person enjoying a non-gratuitous act. Sec. 70,
4. Rights and liability of finder of goods. Sec. 71, and
5. Liability of a person to whom money is paid or a thing has been delivered by mistake or under coercion. Sec. 72.Therefore quasi contracts are not a contracts, they merely consists of certain relations that resemble those created by a contract. The essentials required for the formation of the contract are missing in quasi contracts, i.e. proposal and acceptance, but the result resembles those of a contract. Contracts are right in rem as well as right in personam, as against quasi contracts, which are only right in personam, i.e available to one person only and not the whole world. However, the rights and liabilities of parties to a quasi contract are the same as those of parties who have entered into a contract.
In quasi contracts the liability in exists independent of the agreement and rests upon the principle of equity and unjust enrichment. Lord Mansfield, who is considered the founder of such obligations explained that the law, as well as justice should try to prevent unjust enrichment, i.e. enrichment of a person at the cost of another.A contract has some essentials which include offer and acceptance, without these two essentials a contract cannot be enforced in the court of law. However in order to uphold the principles of equity, justice and good conscience there can exist situations where despite of the presence of the essentials of the contracts the contracts are considered enforceable in the court of law. These contracts which are enforceable under special circumstances which apparently do not satisfy the conditions of contracts but seem to be contracts are known as quasi-contracts, where quasi means apparently but not really.
The concept of quasi-contracts comes into existence due to the principle of Nemo Debet Locupletari ex aliena Jactura which means that no one can benefit from other persons loss, due to which any liability arising out of the situations mentioned in 68 to 72 is considered as a quasi-contract, so that the anybody cannot unjustly enrich at the expense of someone’s loss.
Section 68 to 72 accounts for these special circumstances, however, the question about quasi-contract being enforceable in the court despite of a presence of an agreement is because in certain situation like implied responsibility after finding goods, paying for necessities, paying for the goods obtained by coercion, person enjoying benefit from anybody non-gratuitous act etc another person unjustly gets advantage which is not right justice to the other party., thereby courts allow the enforceability of a contract without agreement in certain conditions.A contract is a real agreement between two or more parties, but a Quasi-contract is not an agreement but resembles an agreement or a contract. Under a contract, both parties give their consents freely, while under quasi-contract, there is no consent of either of the parties, as it is not voluntarily made. Quasi contracts are legally enforceable because the agreement is constructed in a court of law.
In Indian Contract Act Contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable recognizable at law and Quasi agreements depend on the term of “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura”, which infers that no man ought to develop rich out of someone else’s misfortune. Thusly, obligation on account of semi authoritative duties depends on the guideline of ‘crooked improvement’. Quasi agreement essentially implies that no individual should get shamefully improved at the expense of another person’s misfortune. That implies no individual should acquire anything unjustifiably when his acquiring something like this may mean a misfortune for another person.
Thusly, obligation on account of quasi authoritative duties depends on the guideline of ‘crooked improvement’. Quasi agreement essentially implies that no individual should get shamefully improved at the expense of another person’s misfortune. That implies no individual should acquire anything unjustifiably when his acquiring something like this may mean a misfortune for another person.
Under a contract, liability exists consistent with the terms mentioned and arranged by each the parties, whereas underneath quasi-contract, the liability comes into existence through the conduct of the parties and relies on morality, natural justice, equity, and an honest conscience.
General Contracts can be the two rights in Rem and rights in Personam .Yet,Quasi agreements are just rights in Personam, these are just accessible against a particular individual.A contract is a real agreement between two or more parties, but a Quasi-contract is not an agreement but resembles an agreement or a contract.
• Under a contract, both parties give their consents freely, but in case of quasi-contract, there is no consent of either of the parties, it is an involuntarily made contract.
• Under a contract, liability exists according to the terms mentioned and agreed upon by both the parties, whereas under quasi-contract, the liability comes into existence through the conduct of the parties and is based on morality, natural justice, equity, and a good conscience.
• General Contracts are entered into by interested parties voluntarily without any compulsion, whereas quasi-contracts are imposed by law.
• General Contracts can be both rights in Rem (against the whole world) and rights in Personam (against any one person or entity). But quasi-contracts are only rights in Personam, these are only available against a specific person.
• The Indian contracts act 1872 as a whole, encompasses everything about all kinds of contracts. A contract is defined in section 2(h) and sections 68-72 constitute all the information about Quasi-contracts.Quasi contract is made when an agreement is imposed by law through a judge as a remedy when Person A owes something to Person B because they come into possession of Person A’s property indirectly or by mistake. The contract becomes enforceable if Person B decides to keep the item in question without paying for it.
For example, if a door-to-door product selling person leaves a product at someone’s place, by mistake, and the person in whose house the product is left uses it or doesn’t want to return it to the salesperson, then they have entered into a quasi-contract and the person will have to pay for the product to the salesperson.Quasi Contracts are pseudo contracts. They are not entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, the essential elements of a valid contract are absent in cases of quasi contracts.
Essentially, there is no offer, acceptance, consideration, free consent, etc. in quasi contracts. Section 68-72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deal with such contracts.
Section 68 talks about reimbursement from a person’s estate who is incompetent contract to another person who supplies him (and others whom he is legally bound to support) with necessities. Such incompetent persons include minors and lunatics.
Section 69 deals with reimbursement to the interested party if he pays another’s debt. E.g. – A tenant paying the landlord’s debt to save his leased land from being auctioned.
According to section 70, a person enjoying the benefits of a non-gratuitous act is obliged to compensate for it to the person who delivered it unintentionally.
Similarly, sections 71 and 72 deal with the finder of lost goods and delivery by mistake or under coercion respectively.
The fact of the matter is that in all the above cases, there was no real agreement between the parties initially. The liabilities were set up following the parties’ conduct. Such obligations are established by quasi contracts.
The reason why they are enforceable is that the obligation involved is treated as contractual by law. They are established by the courts on the grounds of equity and enforced to reimburse the persons providing benefits to another. In the above cases, where a delivery was made by mistake, or where a finder of a lost good spent some money in order to take care of the good, one party suffered some loss. The intention on part of the court is to make good of the loss to the party or to protect the unjust enrichment of a party in case of payment-related dispute between them.The Indian contracts act 1872, defines Contract in section 2(h) as ” Agreements enforceable by law are contracts” and sections 68-72 constitute situations under the Quasi-contracts.
General Contracts are entered into by interested parties voluntarily without any compulsion, whereas quasi-contracts are imposed by law.
General Contracts can be both rights in Rem (against the whole world) and rights in Personam (against any one person or entity),whereas quasi-contracts are only rights in Personam , these are only available against a specific person i.e., right in personam.
For making of a contract, liability exists according to the terms mentioned and agreed upon by both the parties, whereas under quasi-contract, the liability comes into existence through the conduct of the parties and is based on morality, natural justice, equity, and a good conscience.
Quasi-contract is not an actual contract though it is still enforced by law .It is based on the latin maxim “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura” which means, nobody should be benefited at the cost of another, or nobody should be enriched at the cost of another’s loss.
For example- A ordered a pizza from B, that is wrongly delivered to C and he doesn’t correct the delivery boy and keeps the pizza.Here, quasi-contract arises and C will be required to pay back the amount of pizza to A.
There is no prior agreement, offer and acceptance in a Quasi contract. Quasi contract is enforced when any person enjoys the benefit of something but refuses to pay or compensate for it or the other person might have to bear the burden of it.
To avoid unjust enrichment of one party from the loss of the other party, quasi-contract arises as an obligation by the law and hence it is enforceable by law.In many instances public officials are improper in their discharge of duties which they are required to do under law. This can also be a signal to instances like the recording of the FIRs of cases by officials who are required under law to do so. For similar instances and problems where public officials don’t conduct their duty as required under the law, this section would be attracted where they will have penal sanctions against them. From a social perspective, this is essential to instill confidence in people on the ability of law to promote and justify social security and efficient and trustworthy public systems. This can also be seen from Clause
(iii), which specifically highlights the various sections where failure to follow the procedure contained would attract Section 166A.Ques: Why was Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added by the 2013 Amendment Act? What mischief does it seek to cure?
According to Section 166A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, when a public servant (here meant to be police officers) intentionally (i) disobeys laws that empowers him to take attendance for investigation purpose or (ii) causes harm/ injury to a person even in cases where there is explicit procedure to be followed for investigation or (ii) fails to register complaint (with or without intention) on offences that are cognizable offences in general, he/she is punishable under this section with imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years and will also be fined.
Taking reference from the case – Amit Kumar vs Joginder Singh and ors, (MANU/PH/0477/2019) intent behind the added section of 166A into IPC through the 2013 criminal law amendment can be derived. The main intention of the legislature to bring such an amendment is to reinstate the fading responsibility of police officers/ SHOs as a duty-bound officer of the state to undergo fair investigation. Cognizable offences and the requirement of registering complaint has been stressed upon, especially in certain grave criminal activities, was to curb the mischievous act of police officers in neglecting filing FIRs where it’s been reasoned that the information provided to them is not reasonable and credible. Though this has outrightly spoken in section 154 of IPC, the amendment again stressed upon the same with some specificity which would if not, might be understood loosely. When the section speaks about the investigation by police officers which are in form of causing injury to the general public and making that as punishable, unfair actions and misuse of authority against the general public have been expected to be curbed through the amendment. Also, the amendment was being reinforced through the Circular issued by the Home Ministry of India dated 10.05.2013, which even more stressed upon the punishment as a police officer one would undergo if he’s found to have not complied with the amendment.
The contract of guarantee is entered into with surety provided that there is an existing contract between Creditor and Principal debtor. It is provided that surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of principal-debtor. Keeping in view the extensive amount of risks that surety undertakes, Chapter VIII of the Indian Contract Act,1872 provides a comprehensive set of rights to protect the interest of surety.
1)Right to Consideration- When the creditor enters into a contract with the surety there must be a substantive consideration that benefits the principal debtor. Otherwise, the surety can refuse to perform the liabilities since the contract is void.
2)Revocation of continuing guarantee- The surety has the right to revoke the contract under circumstances such as the surety sends notice to the creditor implying his consent to revoke the contract for the future transaction or the obvious circumstance such as upon his death.
3)Variation in the contract- The liabilities of the surety depends upon the agreement between the creditor and principal debtor. If the terms of the agreement are changed completely which alters the considerations of parties without obtaining the consent of surety, then surety would not be bound to indemnify the creditor.
4)Discharge of surety’s liabilities- As the contract between surety and creditor is derived from the contract between the creditor and principal debtor, the closure of the later contract automatically provides the closure former contract and subsequently the liabilities of surety. Also, if the creditor promises for extension of time to the principal debtor or not to sue the principal debtor; enables the surety right to end the contract provided that he has not assented to such agreement.
5)Upon the imparity of surety’s rights- The surety has the right to end the contract if the creditor does anything inconsistent with the rights of surety or it deviates from the duties towards the surety which potentially causes the imparity of remedies available to the surety against the principal debtor.
6)Surety on the payment- The rights of the creditor will be automatically transferred to the surety when the principal debtor makes the default payment provided that the creditor is already indemnified.
7)Misrepresentation and Concealment – The surety has the right to be compensated if any guarantee obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of facts.
8)An implied promise- The surety has the right to be indemnified by the principal debtor in every contract of guarantee.Section 497 can defined as sexual intercourse with the wife on an another man where the man is already married to someone else. Such a person shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to 5 years or with fine or with both. According to the law the wife is not punishable as an abettor. But in 2018, the Supreme Court stuck the provision stating adultery is no longer a criminal offence.
When the person who is already married and yet marries some other person, he is said to commit the offence of bigamy. A second marriage becomes an offence when the first marriage is said to be valid and when there is solemnization of second marriage. The remedies for such offence include divorce, Injunction, Petition for maintenance and Declaratory Suit.
No, a Muslim man cannot be charged for third marriage in general as according to the holy book Quran, a Muslim man can have up to four wives, but the condition is he must be able to maintain the wife and the children properly, and if he cannot then he is not allowed to have more than one wife.
No, Nikaha Halala is not adultery according to a provision in Muslim law in which when a woman after getting divorced by triple talaq, marries another man, consummates the marriage and gets divorced again in order to be able to remarry her former husband. Nikaha means marriage and Halala means to make something permissible. It’s just the law which allows a woman to remarry her first husband and is not related to adultery.This title aptly & subtly tends to describe the monstrous practice of Nikah Halala, prevalent in Islam. Islamic scholars have often mentioned in their studies that Nikah Halala as a practice has never been approved by the Quran or by the Prophet, in fact it has been judiciously disapproved. The practice is nothing but a wife’s journey from a Haram, who is forbidden for the husband technically due to husband’s refusal to stay in the marriage and pronouncing divorce, to Halal, who is permitted to enter into the marital status with the formerly divorced husband. This conversion of status of wife involves marrying a temporary stranger, followed by sexual intercourse, furthering to a divorce to marry the original husband. A point to remember, this harrowing journey has to be undertaken by the wife, who is put in this saddening situation by the Husband.
I refuse to compare Nikah Halala with Adultery as the two have no similarity whatsoever, the nature of the two go their separate ways. Any definition of adultery clearly defines it as a voluntary act, which is not so in case of Nikah Halala, which rarely is a voluntary act. Furthermore, section 497 IPC points out that adultery is an act of sexual intercourse with the wife of another, but in case of Nikah Halala, technically the woman is no longer the wife of the original husband, she indulges or rather is forced to carry out the consummation of marriage with a stranger, with sole purpose of remarrying her husband, so the marriage is no longer in continuation when there is consummation with another man outside of marriage.
Transgressing from the point in question, Nikah Halala can rather be equated to the practice of prostitution or rather Trafficking, the nature of the two being quite similar. This can be said as there have been cases where the practice of Nikah Halala involves monetary trade, where the temporary so-called groom is generously compensated for the ‘services rendered by him’. This grotesque practice forces us to think of the woman as a chattel who is irreparably & irrevocably entangled in the vicious cycle of haram and halal.The Quran says once a woman is divorced she becomes Haram (Forbidden), yet there stands no sanction for such marriage in the Quran.
As per the law, Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of adultery.
And in Nikah Halala, the woman has been divorced by her husband (legally) and then she she marries another man, consummates the marriage (legally) with that person, and gets divorced again in order to be able to remarry her former husband.
So, it does not get along the line of adultery, as she did not develop any sexual relationship with a man out of her legal marriage.According to Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 says that if the wife of the husband maintains sexual intercourse with any other married man without his wife and her husband knowing or giving consent to it, is guilty of adultery. Such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape but punished with imprisonment which may extend up to 5 years or with a fine or with both. According to the law, the wife is not punishable as an abettor. In 2018, the Supreme Court declared adultery is no longer a criminal affair.
Nikah means “marriage” and halala means to make something “halal” or “permissible”. Nikah halala is a practice in which a husband gives divorce to her wife by announcing talaq, talaq, talaq (triple talaq). In order to work on this marriage, the husband makes her wife consume the other marriage, seek a divorce, and then remarry the former husband. This is a lawful way to marry the former husband.
In Quran, the husband can marry four times in order to maintain the wife and the children equally. If fails, then only one to be maintained. If the husband gives talaq to the wife, he has to go through the above process in order to not say the word “talaq” thrice. This reason will fear the husband and will cease to announce triple talaq casually.
No, adultery and nikah halala is not similar to each other. Adultery is consummated behind the husband’s back with another man whereas the nikah halala is consummated to remarry the former husband. Adultery is extramarital sex whereas Nikah halala is re-marital sex with the former husband. Adultery is by wife desire whereas Nikah halala is by the husband announcement.
Section 498 –A of Indian Penal code states that “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
This is a profoundly serious offence. Under this section “cruelty” can imply both mental and physical torture to the wife from the husband or any relative of the husband.
So, if a husband or a relative to a husband has subjected the wife towards cruelty of any form shall be punishable under this section.
The nature of this offence under section 498 – A is considered as a cognizable offence. The crime is also non- bailable, non-compoundable and can be tried by the magistrate of the first class. This offence is considered “compoundable” only in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
So, any person who has committed a crime under this offence shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to a period of three years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
This section is not just considered as a marital remedy, but it most certainly carries a wider point of view.
In the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, it was held that the husband or relatives of the husband can be punished under this section if they coerce the wife to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
The aim behind this section was to prevent torture of the wife from the husband or the family of the husband.
So in conclusion we can understand the implication of this secton in this society.
