In Defence of Quasi‐Contract

Bibliographic Data

ID9194918
AuthorsDan Priel (0000-0002-8648-5760, Osgoode Hall Law School York University, corresponding author)
Year2012
Volume75
Issue1
Pages54-77
Publication date2012-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueModern Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00888.x
OpenAlexW1750822166
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited26

Restitution scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting the term quasi‐contract. This essay challenges this view. It begins by demonstrating that many debates among restitution scholars are in fact debates about the boundaries of consent‐based liability. This serves as an introduction to the main thesis advanced, which is that the idea of quasi‐contract, which is supposed to cover cases in which the parties would have made a contract if conditions allowed them to do so, helps to explain the doctrine better than the conclusory language of unjust enrichment. The essay concludes by situating the argument within the growing literature on the normative foundations of restitution. It argues that quasi‐contractual liability should be understood not as part of unjust enrichment, but as a different basis of liability that can help us see what liability for unjust enrichment might be: liability grounded in notions of fairness

Argument (complex analysis) · Business · Doctrine · Law and economics · Liability · Normative · Political science · Restitution · Sociology · Unjust enrichment · Free Will and Agency · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal principles and applications

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access