Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena iactura", which ...
There are two types of quasi-contract. One is an action in restitution. The other is unjust enrichment. Note, therefore, that it is improper to say that quasi-contract, implied in law contract, and unjust enrichment are all synonymous, because unjust enrichment is only one type of the broader category of quasi-contracts (contracts implied in ...
Negotiorum gestio ([nəˌgō.shē-ˈȯr-əm-ˈgestēˌō], Latin for "management of business") is a form of spontaneous voluntary agency in which an intervenor or intermeddler, the gestor, acts on behalf and for the benefit of a principal (dominus negotii), but without the latter's prior consent.
Quasi-contract, the legal fiction that mostly evolved into modern restitution Indebitatus assumpsit, the historical form of action for asserting a quasi-contract in common law, especially by asserting the "common counts," such as: Money had and received; Quantum meruit; Quantum valebant; Equitable remedies for restitution include: Account of ...
The modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the law of quasi-contract. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. [1] Beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to subrogation, contribution, recoupment, and claims to the traceable substitutes of misapplied property.
Another exception to this rule, in certain jurisdictions, is the existence of a quasi-contract. In general, in order for a contract to exist, there must be mutual consent among all parties. [ 1 ] In the case of an officious intermeddler, this element of a contract is missing: consideration (goods or services) was provided by one party, but ...
From January 2008 to December 2011, if you bought shares in companies when Richard Owen joined the board, and sold them when he left, you would have a 18.3 percent return on your investment, compared to a -15.9 percent return from the S&P 500.
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is an American contract law case of the New York Court of Appeals with a majority opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo.The case addresses several contract principles including applying the doctrine of substantial performance in preventing forfeiture and determining the appropriate remedy following a partial or defective performance.