Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer
Choose language:

Tag: Advantages and Disadvantages of Quasi Contracts

Doctrine of utilitarianism

The doctrine of utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences, specifically focusing on maximizing overall happiness or utility. Developed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism suggests that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical doctrine that originated in the 18th and 19th centuries and has its roots in the works of several prominent thinkers. While Jeremy Bentham is often considered the founder of utilitarianism, the development of the doctrine involved contributions from multiple philosophers over time. Here’s an overview of the historical development of utilitarianism:

  1. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and social reformer, is widely regarded as the founder of utilitarianism. Bentham developed the utilitarian theory in his work “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789). He proposed that the moral worth of an action should be determined by its utility or usefulness in promoting happiness and minimizing suffering. Bentham famously stated, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.” He advocated for the principle of “the greatest happiness principle,” which posits that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
  2. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher and economist, further developed and popularized utilitarianism in the 19th century. In his seminal work “Utilitarianism” (1861), Mill elaborated on the principles of utilitarian ethics and addressed criticisms of Bentham’s quantitative approach. Mill emphasized the qualitative aspects of happiness and distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. He argued that intellectual, moral, and aesthetic pleasures are superior to mere physical pleasures. Mill’s contributions helped refine the utilitarian doctrine and solidified its place in moral philosophy.
  3. Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900): Henry Sidgwick, an English philosopher, made significant contributions to the development of utilitarianism in the late 19th century. In his influential work “The Methods of Ethics” (1874), Sidgwick examined various ethical theories, including utilitarianism, and discussed their strengths and weaknesses. He introduced the concept of “universal hedonism,” which sought to reconcile individual and collective happiness within the utilitarian framework. Sidgwick’s scholarly analysis contributed to the ongoing refinement and debate surrounding utilitarian ethics.
  4. Other Contributors: Utilitarianism has been shaped by the contributions of numerous other philosophers and thinkers over time. Scholars such as David Hume, Claude-Adrien Helvétius, and Cesare Beccaria laid the groundwork for utilitarian ideas through their writings on ethics, morality, and social utility. Additionally, contemporary philosophers continue to engage with utilitarianism, offering new perspectives and insights into its application in various fields.

Definition:

Utilitarianism posits that the ethical value of an action should be determined by its utility or usefulness in promoting happiness and minimizing suffering. According to this doctrine, the moral worth of an action is not intrinsic but is instead contingent upon its consequences. In essence, an action is deemed morally right if it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals affected by it.

Advantages:

  1. Focus on Utility: Utilitarianism provides a clear and objective criterion for evaluating the morality of actions based on their outcomes. By emphasizing the consequences of actions, it prioritizes the well-being and happiness of individuals, thereby promoting the common good.
  2. Flexibility: Utilitarianism offers flexibility in decision-making, allowing for the consideration of various factors and circumstances in determining the best course of action. It recognizes that different situations may require different approaches to maximizing utility.
  3. Promotion of Social Welfare: Utilitarianism aims to maximize overall happiness or utility, which often leads to decisions and policies that benefit society as a whole. By prioritizing the welfare of the majority, it seeks to address social inequalities and promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Disadvantages:

  1. Difficulty in Measurement: One of the primary criticisms of utilitarianism is the challenge of quantifying happiness or utility. It is often difficult to objectively measure and compare the happiness or suffering experienced by different individuals, making it challenging to determine the consequences of actions accurately.
  2. Potential for Injustice: Utilitarianism’s focus on maximizing overall utility may lead to situations where the rights and interests of minority groups or individuals are disregarded for the greater good. This raises concerns about fairness and justice, as certain individuals or groups may be sacrificed for the benefit of the majority.
  3. Ignorance of Rights and Principles: Critics argue that utilitarianism’s emphasis on outcomes overlooks the importance of moral principles, rights, and duties. Actions that violate fundamental rights or ethical principles may be justified if they lead to greater overall happiness, raising ethical concerns about the treatment of individuals and the protection of human rights.

Impact of utilitarianism in India:

Utilitarianism has influenced various aspects of Indian society, including law, governance, and social reform. While the direct adoption of utilitarian principles in India may not have occurred in a formal sense, the underlying concepts of maximizing overall happiness or utility have often informed policymaking, legal decisions, and social initiatives. Here are some key periods and areas where utilitarianism has had an impact in India:

  1. Colonial Rule: During British colonial rule in India, utilitarian ideas influenced administrative policies and legal reforms. British administrators and lawmakers often framed laws and regulations with the aim of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people, albeit from a paternalistic perspective. Utilitarian principles played a role in areas such as criminal justice, education, public health, and infrastructure development.
  2. Legislative Reforms: Utilitarian thinking has influenced legislative reforms in independent India. Laws related to social welfare, labor rights, environmental protection, and public health often reflect utilitarian considerations aimed at maximizing the well-being of the populace. For example, welfare legislations like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and the Right to Education Act (RTE) can be seen as efforts to promote social utility and reduce poverty and inequality.
  3. Judicial Decisions: Utilitarian principles have informed judicial decisions in India, particularly in cases involving public interest, human rights, and social justice. Courts have often interpreted laws and constitutional provisions in a manner that maximizes overall welfare and promotes the common good. For instance, environmental jurisprudence in India emphasizes the protection of natural resources and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations, reflecting utilitarian concerns for long-term utility.
  4. Social Reform Movements: Utilitarianism has influenced social reform movements in India, advocating for progressive changes to address social injustices and inequalities. Leaders such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, and B.R. Ambedkar promoted reforms based on utilitarian principles of utility and human welfare. Movements for women’s rights, Dalit empowerment, and caste equality have drawn inspiration from utilitarian ideas of promoting happiness and reducing suffering.
  5. Public Policy and Governance: Utilitarian considerations often underlie public policy decisions and governance strategies in India. Policymakers and government agencies prioritize initiatives and investments based on their potential to generate the greatest societal benefits and improve the quality of life for citizens. Economic development plans, poverty alleviation programs, and healthcare reforms are examples of policy areas where utilitarian principles play a role in decision-making.

Overall, while utilitarianism may not have been explicitly adopted as a formal ideology in India, its principles have left a significant imprint on various aspects of Indian society, influencing governance, legislation, judicial decisions, and social movements aimed at promoting the common good and maximizing overall welfare.

Indian Case Laws:

While utilitarianism is primarily a philosophical doctrine, its principles have influenced legal reasoning and decision-making in various contexts. However, specific Indian case laws explicitly applying utilitarian principles may be limited. Instead, utilitarian considerations often underlie judicial decisions related to issues such as public policy, welfare legislation, and the balancing of competing interests.

For example, in cases involving environmental protection and conservation, courts may prioritize the overall welfare of society and future generations over individual interests, reflecting utilitarian concerns for maximizing long-term utility. Similarly, in matters of social welfare legislation, courts may uphold laws aimed at promoting the general welfare and minimizing social harm, even if they impose restrictions on individual freedoms.

While utilitarianism may not always be explicitly referenced in legal judgments, its underlying principles often inform judicial reasoning and the formulation of laws and policies aimed at maximizing societal welfare and happiness.

QUASI CONTRACTS

Quasi Contract laws have been derived from the Latin statement “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura” which proclaims that no human being should gain an unjust benefit from another’s loss. It was one of the main principles of Roman law.

The word ‘Quasi’ means having some resemblance to but not all. Similarly, Quasi Contract means laws that are like regular contract law but not quite so. A regular contract should have some essential components to be considered valid. It includes offers, acceptance, consideration, two or more parties who are legally and mentally capable etc.

There are many situations in which a person may be required to conform to an obligation, although he has neither broken any contract nor committed any tort. For example, A has forgotten certain articles in B’s house. Now B is bound to restore . Such obligations are generally described as ‘quasi contractual obligations’. Quasi contracts are based on the principle of equity and justice. It simply states that nobody shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. In fact, a quasi contract is not a contract at all. It is an obligation which the law creates in the absence of any agreement, when the acts of the party or others have placed in the possession of one person, money or its equivalent under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience, he ought not to retain it, and which in justice and fairness belongs to another. He then is placed under an obligation to restore or repay for such a benefit.


DEFINITIONS OF QUASI CONTRACTS


There is no statutory definition of a quasi contract available either under the English Law or under the Indian Contract Act. Pollock describes quasi contracts as “contracts ‘in law’ but not ‘in fact’, being the subject matter of a fictitious extension of the sphere of the contract to cover obligations which do not in reality fall within it” Quasi contracts are also called implied contracts, They are implied because they create such obligations which resemble those created by contracts. The essentials for the formation of a contract are absent but as outcome resembles those created by a contract they are called quasi contracts. Under English Law, they are also termed as Constructive Contracts or Contracts in Law, etc. Indian Contract Act terms quasi contracts as certain relations resembling those created by contracts and are found under sections 68 to 72.

Salient Facets of Quasi Contractual Rights

  1. A quasi-contract is not longer than an actual contract.
  2. It is no longer based upon the offer and acceptance rule.
  3. It does not occur from any formal agreement but is imposed by means of law.
  4. It is a right that is reachable no longer against the whole world but against a specific man or woman.
  5. It is based on the idea of equity, appropriate conscience, justice, and ideas of herbal justice.


Difference Between Quasi Contracts and Contracts


In case of contracts, it is the consent of the party which produce the obligations. But in quasi contracts there is no question of consent, it is the law alone or natural equity which produces obligations. As noted earlier, a quasi contract is based on the ground that a person shall not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense – of another. There is, however, similarity
between quasi contract and contracts in case of claims for damages. In case of breach of a quasi contract section 73 of the Indian Contract Act provides for the same remedies (claim for damages) as provided in case of breach of a contract. It reads: When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person has contracted to discharge it and has broken his contract.


TYPES OF QUASI CONTRACTS


Sections 68 to 72 deal with five types of quasi contractual obligations.
i)Supply of Necessaries: According to section 68, if a person incapable of contracting (which would include a minor, idiot and lunatic) or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another with ‘necessaries’ suited to his condition in life such person is entitled to recover the value thereof from the property of such incapable person. You should note that the
aforesaid claim for necessaries is based upon’ quasi contractual obligations because a contract with a person incompetent to contract is void-ab-initio. The following two points must, however, be noted in this regard:
a) The amount is recoverable only from the property (if any) of the incapable person and not from him personally.
b) The goods or services supplied must be ‘necessaries’.

ii)Payment of Money Due by Another(Section 69): A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other. Example : B holds land in Bengal on a lease granted by A, the Zamindar. The revenue payable by A to the Government being in arrears, his land is advertised for sale by the Government, Under the revenue law, the consequences of such sale will be annulment of B’s lease. B, to prevent the sale and consequent annulment of his own lease, pays to the Government the sum due from A. A is bound to make good to B the amount so paid (Wazarilal v. NaurangLal). For the section 69 to apply, the following essentials must be met:
a) The person paying must be himself interested in making the payment. Thus, where P left his carriage on D’s premises and D’s landlord seized the carriage for non-payment of the rent. P paid the rent to obtain the release of his carriage. Held. P could recover the amount from D
b) The payment should not be voluntary one.
c) The payment must be such as the other party was bound by law to pay.
Example : The goods belonging to A were wrongfully attached in order to realise arrears of Government revenue due by G. A paid the amount to save the goods from sale. Held he was entitled to recover the amount from G (AbidHussain v. Ganga Sahai).


iii)Obligations to Pay for Non-gratuitous Acts :Where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.
Under section 70, three conditions are required to establish a right of action at the suit of a person who does anything for another:
a)The thing must be done lawfully.
b) It must be done by a person not intending to act gratuitously.
c) The person for whom the act is done must enjoy the benefit of it.


iv)Contracts required to be in writing: You should note that where there is a mandatory provision in an act requiring contracts to be in writing, an oral contract is void. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that where work has been done and accepted, Section 70 is applicable and payment should be made for the work done (State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mandal& Sons).


v)Responsibility of a Finder of Goods: A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. In such a case, an agreement is implied by law between the owner and finder of goods and the latter is deemed to be a bailee. A finder is, thus, bound to take as much care of the goods found as a man of
ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk, quantity and value. Besides, he must make reasonable efforts in finding the real owner.


Rights of the Finder of Goods : A finder of goods has the following rights:

  1. The finder is entitled to retain the goods against the whole world, except the true owner. For example, A picked up a diamond from the floor of B’s shop and handed it over to B to keep it till the owner is found. In spite of best efforts, the true owner could not be found. After some time, A tendered to B the lawful expenses incurred by him for finding the true owner and asked him to return the diamond to him (A). B refused to do so. Held B must return the diamond to A as A was entitled to retain it against the whole world, except the true owner (Hollins v. Fowler).
  2. The finder has lien in respect of any sum which may be due to him on account of expenditure incurred by him
    in respect of the goods (section 168).
  3. Where the owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it (section 168). This right was re-endorsed in the case of Harbhajan v. Harcharan.
  4. The finder may sell the goods in the following circumstances :
    a) Where the thing found is in danger of perishing.
    b) Where the owner cannot, with reasonable diligence, be found out.
    c) Where the owner has been found but he refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.
    d) Where the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found amount to 2/3rd or more of the value of the thing found.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Quasi Contracts

Advantages of using a quasi contract include the fact that these legal instruments are typically based on the unjust enrichment principle. This prevents one party from gaining an undue advantage over another. Thus, it is a safeguard for innocent victims of wrongful acts and a legal alternative to compensation for damages, ensuring that the one who provides services or goods gets compensated for the same.  In order to comply with quasi contracts, all parties involved are obliged to follow them, as they are created by court order. 

There are also some drawbacks or limitations. Those who received benefits negligently, unnecessarily, and by miscount will not be held liable. Although a person can be liable under a quasi contract, he cannot be charged more than the amount he has received under the contract. Thus, there is no provision available for the recovery of more amount than that which has been received by the plaintiff – if the plaintiff obtains only part of the services/goods that he contracted for originally, he cannot claim a compensation as the whole amount is not recovered. 

 If there’s an express agreement between the parties, plaintiffs have to give up all profits. Though a quasi contract is a legal remedy that provides protection from unjust enrichment of the beneficiaries of the services or goods, a plaintiff can get relief only if he can prove that he has suffered losses due to the breach of the contractual obligations of the defendant.

Conclusion:

A quasi contract is also known as an “implied contract,” in which a defendant is ordered to pay restitution to the plaintiff, or a constructive contract, meaning a contract that is put into existence when no such contract between the parties exists.A quasi-contract exists in the absence of a written contract. It may additionally be a court docket ordered to keep away from one party gaining at the fee of another party’s actions. However, the simple nature and essence of the principle remain identical besides any drastic change