NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND CONTRACT LAW

CONTRACT LAW – I PROJECT

SUBMITTED TO:
• Ms. SONAL SINGH, Assistant Professor Of Law
• Ms. MEGHA SADHU, Research Associate Cum Teaching Assistant

SUBMITTED BY:

• SNEHA MISHRA (2019/B.A. LL.B./048)

• SHRADDHA MALVIYA (2019/B.A. LL.B./105)

1
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this research work on the topic “UNJUST ENRICHMENT
AND CONTRACT LAW” required extensive guidance and assistance of several people. First
and foremost, we would like to convey our gratitude to our subject teachers Ms. Sonal Singh
and Ms. Megha Sadhu for giving us an opportunity to execute the research on this topic. We
are thankful for the constant guidance and support, without which this project would not have
been carried out.

We would further like to express our gratitude to the administration, the IT department and the
librarians for aiding in the research by equipping us with the facilities required during the
making of this project.

We would also like to thank our seniors and friends who guided us and provided us with
worthwhile opinions and suggestions.

2
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL TOPIC PAGE

NO. NO.

I. INTRODUCTION 4

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5

III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 6

• AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

IV. GENESIS OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT 7

V. UNJUST FACTORS AND JURISTIC REASONS 9

VI. RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 11

VII. PROVISIONS AND JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA 13

VIII. DENIALS AND DEFENCES IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT 15

IX. RELEVANT CASES 17

X. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 20

XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 21

3
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

INTRODUCTION

An advanced and cultured system of law is impelled to be just and protective to its citizens so
that there exists a well established and chaos free society. In order to protect and administer its
citizens remedies for cases in which a man retains or derives unjust benefit from other, a law
of unjust enrichment has been established so that an unjust advantage cannot be taken from
another person.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment was initially constructed in English law upon the principle
of assumpsit or ‘had and received’, and was declared by Lord Mansfield in a famous case. The
doctrine of unjust enrichment states that a person who has been unjustly enriched at the cost of
the other is obligatory to compensate the other party1.
This principle that no person should be unfairly be benefited by chance at the expense of
another has been raised to justify the right to restitution in a numerous cases which doesn’t fall
under contract and tort. And eventually it came to be recognized as an independent legal
discipline known as the law of unjust enrichment. This is the most debated and discussed
private law subjects regardless of its exceptional contemporary origin. There are various
interpretations and definitions of the doctrine of unjust enrichment described in different books
on different terms; such as
• According to Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary2: “Unjust enrichment is where a person
unjustly obtains a benefit at the expense of another. In certain cases where money is
gained by mistake or through fraud which has wholly failed, the law infers a promise
to repay it.”
• According to Black’s Law Dictionary3: “Unjust enrichment is the: a) The
maintenance of a benefit conferred by another, without offering reimbursement, in
circumstances where reimbursement is reasonably expected. b) A benefit obtained
from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, the beneficiary must
make restitution or recompense.
In the Indian Context, Unjust enrichment is an alternate form of unbiased form of relief that is
almost similar but different from quantum meruit.
The basic difference between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment is that in unjust
enrichment there is not an agreement at the first place, where as in quantum meruit, there is an
agreement but the agreement is not quoted with the price.
It is now commonly said that the concept of unjust enrichment is a universal one, and that the
principle that compensation will be settled of an unjust enrichment has come into action in all
parts of law. This kind of recognition is fairly a recent development in contemporary world.

1
Dr Saroj Saini, Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment And Judicial Trends In India, 5, ‘international journal of
scientific research’, ‘45, (2016)
2
Ibid
3
Ibid

4
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present research study mainly follows a doctrinal and analytical method. Taking into
account, the researchers have assimilated data from various sources like articles, books,
journals, e-journals etc. The Indian Contract Act, 1972 and various case laws have been
comprehended and analysed in a holistic way to achieve the objectives of the project. The data
collected has been compiled, analysed and systemized to generate observable outcomes in
order to provide resolution to the research questions.

The OSCOLA mode of citation has been used in the whole project.

5
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What was the core idea which led to the conception of Unjust Enrichment, from
historical background to the present state?

2. What are the factors considered which leads to the emergence of unjust enrichment?
3. What are the remedies available when a person is unjustly enriched at the cost of another?
4. What are the provisions and judicial trends of unjust enrichment in India?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. To crucially understand the theory of unjust enrichment in the Indian context.

2. To discern how the courts responds when a person is enriched at the expense of another
unjustly.
3. To study the relevant cases which resulted in the outgrowth of a new law, i.e., unjust
enrichment.
4. To determine and ascertain the factors considered when unjust enrichment occurs.

6
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

GENESIS OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT

The law of Unjust Enrichment finds its major traces in the common law system and fell under
the rubric of quasi-contract. In the modern times the doctrine of Unjust Enrichment falls under
a different category of quasi-contract and not in tort law or contract law. This law has gradually
evolved from the second century AD and has seen many changes in the present modern era. To
understand how the law of Unjust Enrichment has developed to its present state, it is pivotal to
go back to the older laws that developed from Roman laws, English laws and more recently
how the changes has been modified by Americans and by the Indian makers in the Indian
Contract Act.
• HISTORY IN ROMAN LAW:
The expression quasi-contract under which the law of Unjust Enrichment falls was
extracted from the Roman law’s phrase ‘quasi ex contractu meaning ‘as if from or by
contract.4’ In Roman law, in the second century AD, civil obligations were classified
into arising either from ‘ex contractu (from contract) or ‘ex delicto (from wrong). But
gradually they realised that some obligations does not only arises from contract or
wrong but from various other causes, i.e., ‘ex variis causarum figures.’

• HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LAW AND THE RISE OF ‘THE ACTION OF

ASSUMPSIT’:
In the sixteenth century there occurred a new kind of action called the action of
assumpsit which was to be used when someone breached a promise5. When a promise
was breached the action of assumpsit applied and this action proved to be an alternative
to the earlier actions of debt and account. This action was known as indebitatus
assumpsit where the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for a certain sum
(indebitatus) but failed on the promise to repay it (assumpsit)6. Unjust Enrichment
claims were brought through a sub-form of indebitatus assumpsit and the use of
assumpsit was extended to cases comprising non-contractual claims in the later half of
the seventeenth century. The indebtness was claimed as money on the plaintiff’s behalf.

• QUANTUM MERUIT AND QUANTUM VALEBAT:

7
Quantum Meruit and Quantum Valebat were two sub-forms of assumpsit meaning “as
much as he deserved’ and’ as much as they were worth’ respectively. These principles
were also applied in non-contractual situations and hence the promise to pay in some
cases was implied8. Quasi contracts and implied contracts were already in use and
implied contracts expanded in the later years rather than lessening down.

4
Birks, Introduction, at p 36
5
Ibid.
6
Baker, ‘History’, at p 42-44
7
Ibbetson, Introduction, at p 273-75
8
Ibid.

7
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

• EQUITY:Equity has made important contributions to the law of Unjust Enrichment9.

It granted restitutionary relief and remedies in cases involving mistake, fraud, undue
influence, exploitation, misrepresentation, etc10.

• AMERICAN HISTORY:
A important development occurred in 1937 when the American Law institute (ALI)
published its first Restatement of the law of Restitution11. It was based on the principle
that a person should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other. The English
scholar Winfield was influenced by American jurisprudence and this restatement has
shaped the modern law of unjust enrichment and restitution being a remedy.
12
When we perceive and apprehend the various changes and modifications explained in the
above paragraphs, we get a picture of how the law of Unjust Enrichment has been
developed from time to time and how it is presently used and understood in the Indian
context and how the makers of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 have made the necessary
changes and modifications.

9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
American law institute , Restatement of the law of restitution: quasi contracts and constructive Trusts (St
Paul: ALI publishers,1937)
12
Ibid.

8
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

UNJUST FACTORS AND JURISTIC REASONS

To justify that an enrichment is “unjust” obviously is an insufficient explanation of liability.

Individual conceptions of justice vary from one person to the other, and the availability of
restitution cannot be left to judicial perception. Broadly, there are two models of justice; which
roughly correlate with the two great legal systems of Western society.
UNJUST FACTORS
The 'unjust factors' is recognised in the western law of unjust enrichment. Some of the policies
are mentioned in the law of contract, where they are known as 'corrupt aspects'13. These
ideologies are not permanently similar. Outlined below are some of the factors:
• FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION: When a person wages cash to another individual
for a contemplation which drifts apart then the plaintiff is eligible for restitution on the
Basis of total failure of consideration14. This is also known as "failure of basis”. The
traditional law is that the failure of contemplation must be complete15. This implies that
the defendant should not have provided any kind of services16. This total failure rule is
exposed to various kinds of academic criticism. In such cases, the defendant can still
get compensation.

• MISTAKE OF LAW: A benefit deliberated on other while striving under a qualifying

fault constitutes to prima facie entitlement for restitution of the benefit. Where one
individual pays cash to other through causal mistake of fact or regulation, then the
person may be given restitution on the ground of mistake. Restitution for a incorrect
expense is extensively known as the typical case of restitution for unjust enrichment.

• ILLEGALITY: When English unjust enrichment lawyers talk of “illegality”, they

generally do so in the background of the separating of partly-performed illegal
contracts. Two parties enter into an illegal contract17. What generally happens is that
one pays for a service to be performed but fails to receive the agreed exchange. No
action can be brought for compensation for non-performance, nor will an order for
specific performance be available. With such a harsh attitude taken to contractual
performance, the pressure falls entirely on the law of unjust enrichment to sort out the
chaos. The difficulties regarding this only strengthens because of the fact that english
law implements an extremely wide view as to what constitutes to an illegal contract.

Other unjust factors also include Misrepresentation, Necessity, Ignorance, Undue

Influence and exploitation.

13
Birks,’No consideration: Restitution after void contracts.’ (1993) 23 UWALR 195
14
Markesinis, Lorenz, Dannemann The law of contracts and restitution (1997) 713
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Cf.Medicus, Allegmeiner Teil des BGB, 7th ed, 648

9
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

JURISTIC REASONS
The first problem originates from the fact that there are different legal systems that devises
different strategies for determining the availability of respite18. The common law system
traditionally has required proof of an unjust factor - i.e. a positive reason for allowing recovery.
In the case of a mistaken payment, for example, relief is granted only because the plaintiff's
intention to provide a benefit upon the defendant was diminished by fault19. The civil law, in
contrast, generally intervenes in the absence of any legal basis for a transfer - i.e. if there is no
reason to deny relief20. Every enrichment consequently is changeable unless it was given as a
gift or paid pursuant to a contract. The basic difference is therefore profound.
There are three necessities to be fulfilled before an unjust enrichment can be said to exist: an
enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment.

18
Pettkus, 2 S.C.R at 836
19
Ibid.
20
Paul G. Mahoney, The common law and economic growth, STUD. 503, 511 (2001)

10
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

The law of restitution is a gain based recovery. It is a remedy that aims to reestablish to an
innocent party the gains that someone else has obtained from them. The law of restitution
majorly concerns the actions and activites in which one person demands a right in respect of
a gain attained by another, in place of compensation for a loss21.
As the law presently stands, the law of restitution can be divided into two broad categories:
• Restitution for Unjust Enrichment
• Restitution for Wrongs
Besides these two categories there exist a range of doctrines which also provide restitutionary
or equivalent remedies.
RESTITUTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT
When a person unlawfully gets a benefit at the cost of other person and where the situation
and conditions were unfair there are no defences available in this case. Therefore, in this
case the law puts forth an obligation to the other party to pay compensation. There are
various scenarios where the plaintiff can ask for a restitution22:
• If the defendant is wrongfully benefited.
• If the enrichment has been made on the cost of the plaintiff.
• If the enrichment made at the expense of the plaintiff is unjust and unfair.
• When there is no sign of defences.

In order to assure that the said criteria for claiming a restitution is fulfilled, it is also suitable
to also consider if at all any of the defences to such a claim might exist or not.

RESTITUTION FOR WRONGS

Restitution for wrongs refers to a remedy where a gain or benefit can be taken away from a
defendant who has committed a wrong, either a tort, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty or breach of confidence23.
When the wrong is tortious in nature, the innocent party can in certain cases choose to seek
restitution for gains made by the defendant rather than damages for the breach of duty24. When
a breach of contract is involved, it may be possible to obtain an account of profits. There are
particular considerations where the wrong is fraud or deceit, and where there has been breach
of fiduciary duties.

21
P Birks, Unjust Enrichment (2nd ed, Clarendon, Oxford, 2005)
22
Edelman and Degeling, Equity in commercial law (lexisnexis, 2005)
23
Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, Landmark cases in the law of restitution (Hart, 2006)
24
BP Exploration Co Ltd v Hunt (1983) 2 AC 352

11
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

REMEDIES IN RESTITUTION25
Restitutionary claims can lead to personal or proprietary remedies. Personal remedies involve
money and finance whereas proprietary remedies relate to specific property and can be
convenient to claimants if they enable specific sums of money and other assets to be followed
and traced into the hands of third parties. Proprietary claims also take priority over other rights
and interests26.

25
Restatement of restitution and unjust enrichment, 2000
26
Ibid.

12
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

PROVISIONS AND JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA

Any civilised system of law is obliged to provide remedies for cases of unjust enrichment or
unjust benefit when a person has enriched himself at another’s expense which is against his
conscience. The Indian law recognizes the doctrine of Unjust Enrichment in the Indian contract
Act, 1872. The chapter V of the aforementioned act under the heading, ‘Of certain relations
resembling those created by contract’ incorporates the principles of Unjust Enrichment in
sections 68 to 72 and desists the term ‘quasi-contract27.’

SECTIONS 68 TO 72 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT ARE INTERPRETED

BELOW:
• SECTION 68: Claims for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or
on his account.
In line with section 68 of the Indian Contract Act28, the person who has furnished with
necessary supplies is entitled to reimburse for the property of a person incapable of
entering into a contract. Reimbursement is entitled for the liability and not the agreed
price.
The term necessary encompasses everything necessary to maintain an incompetent
person but not luxury. Medical and legal services are necessaries but for example, the
festival expenses are not necessaries29. The sections 68 of the Indian contract act is
applied to minors, along with them to the persons of unsound mind and others. Under
this section a minor’s estate is claimed and the supplier is entitled to a reimbursement
for the supplies.

• SECTION 6930: Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment

of which he is interested.
There exists certain conditions under this liability. Firstly, there should be interest of
the plaintiff for making payment and it should be legally recognizable. An honest belief
is sufficient enough of the person who makes the payment. Further the person should
be interested in making the payment and should not be bound to pay to protect his own
interests. And finally the defendant should be under legal compulsion to pay and not
under moral compulsion.

• SECTION 70: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.

According to section 7031, when a person enjoys benefit by the other person who
lawfully does anything, or delivers anything for him and not gratuitously, he is bound
to make compensation for the services done. Here the person is obliged to make
compensation and the fact whether he is interested in making the payment is not
considered.

27
Ibid.
28
ICA, S.68
29
Ibid.
30
ICA, S.69
31
ICA, S.70

13
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

Express and implied contracts also holds this section. In void contracts, section 70
extends to the cases where services were provided or things delivered.
Section 70 exhibits the principle of quantum meruit, which is applied for some technical
reason a contract is held to be invalid.

• SECTION 71: Responsibility of finder of goods.

As stated by section 71 of the Indian Contract Act32, a finder of goods which belongs
to another takes them into custody is treated at par with a bailee. If goods are found in
a public place by a person he is not bound to take charge of it, but an occupier of land
taking the possession of goods, is expected to take reasonable steps to locate the owner,
to keep safe and preserve the goods and to return it.

• SECTION 72: Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by

mistake or under coercion. Section 7233 says that when money has been paid or some
other thing has been delivered to a person by mistake or under coercion, he must repay
or return it. The money has to be paid back whether the amount was paid by mistake of
fact or by mistake of law. This section tells that the defendant has no right to claim the
payment made under compulsion34. When money is paid by taking the advantage of the
weak or by extortion or illegal oppression, it can be recovered by a claim in restitution.
Hence the cases or situations where a person has neither broken a contract nor
committed any tort, justice is delivered through these sections of the Indian Contract
Act. When a person tries to take the benefit at the expense of the other, sections 68 to
72 allows to give relief not under the heading quasi-contract but under the headline
‘certain relations resembling those created by contracts’ as named by the Indian
framers.

32
ICA, S.71
33
ICA, S.72
34
Ibid.

14
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

DENIALS AND DEFENCES IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT

When the defedant, procures a benefit at the cost of the plaintiff in unjust situations and
conditions; he is said to have a prima facie right to restitution. These cases are basically
personal right to the money value of the profit received. In this case strict liability comes into
picture which means the defendant need not require to prove any wrongdoing.
After this the question arises that whether the defendant’s defences are valid. Restitutionary
claims and it’s defences have a wider concept than defences to actions in unjust enrichment.
Here are few examples of the defences which constitutes to the restitutionary claims:

• Change of position:- Change of position provides a defence to a defendant where it would

be unfair to compel him or her to make restitution 35. It is best explained by way of
example: Larry by mistakely receives a $4,000 dividend on shares 36. Pleased with his
apparent good fortune, Larry treats his daughter to a car which he could never have
afforded otherwise. If Larry was later required to provide restitution, he would
legitimately feel aggrieved 37. The cost of the car would fall upon him, rather than upon
the source of the apparent dividend. The law of unjust enrichment, therefore, provides
Larry with a defence.
• Estoppel:- The law of estoppel, generally, tries to stop person A from benefiting from
actions taken by person B as a result of A’s promises. Here the question arises what if A
promised B that he would get an interest in a house and B, subsequently, spends a lot of
money improving the house. If A does not give B an interest in the house in his Will,
should the law permit A’s estate to benefit? Estoppel acts to prevent A from retaining the
benefit. If the claimant was under a legal duty to provide the benefit, then this will act as
a defence to the claim.
• Laches and Acquiescence:- Laches ascends when a claimant has unreasonably and
inexcusably delayed in carrying out an action which has created disadvantage for the
defendant. Acquiescence is similar to rejection 38. This will act as a defence to unjust
enrichment claim where the claimant has delayed asserting their rights for so long that
the claimant is pronounced to have acquiesced to the alleged unjust enrichment. In the
circumstances, it is considered unfair to the defendant to provide restitution .
• Limitation periods:- Ontario’s Limitation Act 2002, generally, places a two-year
limitation on most types of actions. Equitable claims against something except than land,
have a two year limitation period. For unjust enrichment claims relating to real property,
however, the deadline for the claimant to bring the claim is 10 years.
• The impossibility of counter-restitution:- Before a plaintiff can recover any profit
from the defendant, the plaintiff must return any benefit accquired, which they have
received from the defendant 39. Thus, in any case if there has been an exchange of benefits,
and the plaintiff is unable to give counter-restitution, their claim will be barred.
• Lack of clean hands:- Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and those who seek to
rely on reasonable and equitable remedies must come to court with clean hands. Martek
v Martek is a good example

35
Ibid vol II, 176, 515 and 532
36
Philip collins Ltd v Davis (2000)
37
Part C, sec (1)
38
Cresman 28, 29; Sempra, An introduction to law of Restitution, Oxford, 109
39
Kerr v Baranow, (2011),SCC 10, (2011) 1 SCR 269, 116

15
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

RELEVANT CASES

INDIAN CASES

1. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v State of Gondal40

Facts: In this following case, a Maharaja sold certain mills to the plaintiff without
paying overdue municipal taxes. To save the property when it was going to be sold
on execution, the plaintiff Seksaria paid all the taxes. Now the plaintiff sues the
defendant in order to recover the money paid by him in the form of municipal tax.
Issue: Will Seksaria be allowed to reimburse the amount .

Held: It was held by Lord Radcliffe in this case that the plaintiff will be allowed to
reimburse under the section 69 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 which says that
reimbursement should be given when a person by his own interest pays money due by
another and this condition was appropriately fulfilled by the plaintiff.

2. State of West Bengal v B.K Mondal41

Facts: The plaintiff, in addition to the construction work requested by an officer of
the state constructed the office, guard-room, kitchen and warehouse. But the state
tried to escape from the liability by using article 299 of the Indian constitution which
says that neither the president nor the governor should be held personally liable for
such contracts on behalf of them.
Issue: Whether there was contract between the plaintiff and state of West Bengal and
will the plaintiff be able to claim under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
Held: For the application of section 70 of the Indian contract act in the above addressed
case three conditions need to be fulfilled the conditions being (a) something must be
lawfully done by the person (b) not intending to do so gratuitously and (c) benefit is
being enjoyed voluntarily by the other for whom something is done. Also section 70
applies to certain relations resembling those created by contracts and here all the
conditions were being fulfilled and the state voluntarily enjoyed the benefit of the
construction . Hence, the claim will be allowed.

3. Sales tax officer, Banaras and Ors. v Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf42

Facts: The present case deals with the sales tax levied by the defendant for the
transactions entered by the plaintiff after the impunged collection of tax on such
transactions was declared illegal, alleging that such levy was done under mistake of
law, the plaintiff claimed refunds under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act.

Issue: Whether section 72 will come into force within its scope of mistake as to law.

40
AIR 1950 PC 99
41
AIR 1962 SC 779
42
AIR 1959 SC 135

16
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

Held: According to section 72 of the Indian Contract Act money paid under mistake
of fact or mistake of law, bot h are recoverable and hence here section 21 of the Act
which renders contract made in mistake as to law valid, will not be in conflict. Hence
the plaintiff will be able to recover the money.

4. Union of India v Amar Singh43

Facts: In this case the goods booked before partition were found to be missing. Later
the goods were found in a wagon in New Delhi. The owner of the goods then sued the
railways of east Punjab who was handling the wagon from Indo-Pak border into India.

Held: In this case, under section 71 it was ruled that when administration of Pakistan
railways left wagon in india and Indian railways took them into their custody, the
railways will be liable under section 71 as it was the finder of goods and it had
responsibility of a bailee.

ENGLISH CASES

5 Moses v Macferlan44
In the law of restitution Moses v Macferlan is one of the foundational and elementary
case which said that in certain circumstances like when money is paid by mistake to
someone or under oppression, the money can be recovered legally.

Facts: Facts follow that four promissory notes were made to Moses by Jacob for 30s
each. Moses endorsed them to Macferlan, thus transferring over the rights of money.
Now there was an agreement that Moses should not be liable for the payment of
money and Macferlan would not seek money from Moses.

But Macferlan sued Moses and thus Moses sued back Macferlan to recover money.

Held: Lord Mansfield said that here the action of assumpsit would not apply and the
defendant is obliged to refund the money by ties of natural justice.

6. Sinclair v Brougham45
Facts: A society was formed under the building Societies Act 1836 but was not
registered under the buildings act 1874. It took banking business which was ultra
vires and hence the depositors wanted to recover the money otherwise the shareholders
would be unjustly enriched. Held: House of lords did not allowed remedy under
quasi contract.

43
AIR 1960 SC 233
44
1760 2 Bur 1005
45
1914 AC 398

17
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

7. Fibrosa Spolka Alkeyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. 46

Facts: In this case a written contract was agreed between an English

company(respondents) and a polish company (appellants) for machinery which was
worth £4,800. Certain conditions were subject to delivery and the contract holded a
CIF term, which required the delivery by sea to Gydnia, Poland.
The appellants had already paid £1,000 and £1,600 had to be paid upon the placement
of the order. In the contract there existed a clause 7 which granted plausible
elongation in case of impediment of the dispatch of goods due to any phenomenon
beyond control of the English company. Second world war broke out on third
September 1939 and Great Britain declared war against Germany and hence the
polish company wanted to recover the paid money(£1,000). But the appeal was in
favour of the English company so the case went to the House of Lords.

Issue: Were the Polish company entitled to recover the paid money?

Held: The Lordship went in favour of the Polish company to recover the deposit
which was paid for consideration and which was not a final payment. Hence, the
appellants were entitled to recover.

8. Plinche v Colburn47

Facts: There was a author (Plaintiff) who created various dramatic entertainments and
was working under the publishers named ‘The Juvenile Library’ to show the history
of older times and their armour and costumes. For this work he was to be paid 100
guineas but he discontinued before completing the work. Then he asked for 50 guineas
for the portion of work he had done by making various drawings and manuscripts
but the defendant refused to pay48. An action was brought against him.

Held: The claimant was allowed to recover the money because performance was done
by him. Here quantum merit is applied for the services done by the plaintiff.

46
1943 AC 32
47
1831 5 C&P 58
48
Ibid.

18
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

One of the requirements of human beings is that they get justice so that their civil and
political life can be enjoyed by them. The Unjust Enrichment theory had a long
history and it developed from various countries from time to time and grew gradually
from concept to concept. 49The law got its name ‘Unjust Enrichment’ from the English
law. There was a time when the lawyers knew nothing about Unjust Enrichment but
remedies were given in many situations which later were categorized under this
theory.

The main aim of conducting this research was to understand how the principle of
unjust enrichment advanced and elaborated, what are the principles, rules and
categories under it and what are the provisions followed in India. The research
analysed major cases which led to the development of the theory and the cases varied
from English cases to Indian cases50.

The law started developing from the second century AD when the Romans formed a
phrase quasi ex contractu and then later grew the action of assumpsit in English law.51
The principles of quantum meruit, equity and conscience helped to grow this theory
to a greater extent and the judgements in various cases were also pivotal in framing
the law.

In India the Indian Contract Act, 187252 holds Unjust enrichment theory in sections
68 to 72 and give restitutionary powers. Although after recognizing the availability
of restitutionary defences, the Indian law should shift its focus on minute details so that
the competing interests will be properly balanced and a more developed principle of
unjust enrichment would be evolved. If the courts will show more enthusiasm for
this subject and in a principled manner, problems will be identified clearly and the
solution will not be muddled and coherent one but a focused specific approach to the
problem.

49
Tariq A Baloch, Unjust Enrichment and Contract at p 236
50
Ibid.
51
Gaius, Institutes, 3.91
52
ICA, 1872

19
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

• Singh Avatar, Contact and Specific Relief (12th edition)

• Baloch A Tariq, Unjust Enrichment and Contract.

ARTICLES & JOURNALS

• W.M.C Gummow, 2011, Moses v.Macferlan 250 Years On, Washington and Lee Law
Review ,68,881.
• Analysis of Section 70.
• Neerja Gurnani, Quasi Contracts And Contracts (2019).
• Quasi-Contractual Claims In India.
• Alvin W.L. SEE, An Introduction to the Law of Unjust Enrichment. (2013). Malayan
Law Journal. (2013).
• Edwin W. Patterson, Scope of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Missouri Law
Review, Vol.1 (1936)
• Emily Sherwin,” Restriction and Equality: An Analysis of the Principle of Unjust
Enrichment” (2001), Cornell Law Faculty Publication, Paper 847.
• Unjust Enrichment Under Indian Contract Act,1872: An Analysis.
• Dr. Saroj Saini, Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment And Judicial Trends In India, Vol.5.
• Kit Barker, Understanding the Unjust Enrichment Principle in Private Law: A Study of
the Concepts And its Reasons(2008).
• The Principle Of Unjust Enrichment.
• The Intellectual History of Unjust Enrichment.
• James Goudkamp, Charles Mitchell, Denials and defences in the Law of Unjust
Enrichment.
• Mitchell McInnes, The Reason to Reverse: Unjust Factors And Juristic Reasons.

20
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

WEBSITES

• https://wikivissually.com
• www.lawteacher.net
• www.researchgate.net
• www.trans-lex.org
• www.indiankanoon.org
• ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/the-role-of-illagality-in-the-english-law
• era.library.ualberta.ca
• www.lexisnexis.com
• en.wikipedia.org
• www.wagnersidlofsky.com

21