What Is a Quasi-Contract Equity

Quasi-contracts occur when there is a dispute over the payment of goods and services. What is difficult in these circumstances is that no formal agreement has been reached between the parties involved. The court intervenes to prevent what is called unjust enrichment. Essentially, it is trying to correct a situation in which one party has acquired something at the expense of the other party. After acknowledging that the notion of unjust enrichment is “notoriously difficult to define", id. to 7 (internal quotation marks omitted) (cited hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281, 295 (2007) (cited by Daniel Friedmann, Restitution of Benefits Learned Through the Appropriation of Property or the Commission of a Wrong, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 504, 504 (1980)), the Court examined the parameters of the doctrine, the underlying foundations and the reasons for it. The court noted “that Bubba Gump`s unjust enrichment claim is, in everyone`s view, a quasi-contractual claim." Id. at p.

7. The Court explained that a “quasi-contract" is a legal fiction created at common law that allows for a “contractual remedy in cases where there is no contract, but where the circumstances are such that justice justifies the reinstatement as if there had been a promise." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (cited County Comm`rs by Caroline Cty., 358 m. p. 94) (cited Black`s Law Dictionary 324 (6th ed. 1990)). In short, a quasi-contract is an obligation legally created on the basis of the principles of justice and equality to prevent the unjustified enrichment that would result if a party received something it should not keep. Id. at 7-8. The court also found that the lease “does not fully address the remedy for a breach of AAFC`s obligation to maintain and repair the property in good condition," but this finding was also incorrect.

Id. at p. 10. The parties` “lease not only related to AAFC`s obligation to maintain the public spaces in good condition and condition, but Bubba Gump sued and obtained redress under the lease for AAFC`s material breach of that obligation." Id. at 10-11. It sought a quasi-contractual remedy “solely because it failed to demonstrate its right to a contractual remedy for loss of profits resulting from AAFC`s breach." Id. at p. 11. Since a quasi-contract is not a genuine contract, mutual consent is not required and a court may impose an obligation regardless of the intention of the parties. When a party brings an action for damages under a quasi-contract, the remedy is usually a refund or claim according to a theory of quantum symbolism. Liability is determined on a case-by-case basis. Since quasi-contract is an obligation legally created to prevent unjust enrichment if there is no contract, the claim is not available if a contract exists.

Referring to his decision in Mass Transit Admin.c. Granite Constr. Co., 57 Md. App. 766 (1984), the court stated that it had long recognized that “no quasi-contractual claim may arise if there is a contract between the parties for the same subject matter on which the quasi-contractual claim is based". Slip Op. to 8 (internal quotation marks omitted) (cited Mass Transit Admin., 57 Md. App.

to 776 (cited Indus. Forklift service. Corp., 432 N.E.2d 999, 1002 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)). The court also cited its decision in Mass Transit Admin. for another point that is often ignored or misunderstood – that is, although unjust enrichment is based on notions of fairness and justice – quasi-contract is a lawsuit before the courts that provides a remedy for restitution: the Court noted that “the Court of Appeal listed four possible exceptions to the current rule that excludes unjust enrichment where a enforceable contract exists. " but also noted, “No reported decision applying Maryland law has ever upheld a decision based on one of these exceptions. Id. at p. 9.

These four exceptions apply in the event of (1) fraud or bad faith; (2) a breach of contract or mutual termination of the contract; (3) the retroactive effect is justified; or (4) the contract does not deal with the subject matter in its entirety. Id. (citing Caroline Cty.`s County Comm`rs., 358 m. to 100; Janusz v. Gilliam, 404 billion 524, 537 (2008)). The District Court relied on two of these exceptions by allowing Bubba Gump to recover in a quasi-contract, but the Special Court of Appeal ruled that the District Court`s confidence was erroneous. Even in the absence of an agreement that meets the requirements of a contract, obligations may be implied by New Jersey contract law, which gives the “innocent" party remedies similar to a contract. .