Quasi-Contracts

• Author: Kevin R. Culhane
• Pages: 806-847

30-806

Chapter 30

Quasi-Contracts

§3000 Introduction

§3010 Elements of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action

§3020 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases

§3030 Basic Information

§3040 Benefit Conferred Upon Defendant – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3050 Benefit Conferred Upon Defendant – Defendant to Plaintiff

§3060 Unjust Enrichment – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3070 Unjust Enrichment – Defendant to Plaintiff

§3080 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3090 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases – Defendant to Plaintiff

§30100 Remedies in Quasi-Contract Cases – Plaintiff to Defendant

§30110 Remedies in Quasi-Contract Cases – Defendant to Plaintiff

§30120 Investigatory Interrogatories

§3000 Introduction

§3010 Elements of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action

§3020 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases

§3030 Basic Information

§3031 Information Regarding Defendant

§3031.1 Identification of Defendant

§3031.2 Personal Data Regarding the Defendant

§3031.3 Agency Relationships

§3031.4 Similar Claims and Legal Proceedings

§3032 Information Regarding Plaintiff

§3032.1 Personal Data Regarding the Plaintiff

§3032.2 Prior Quasi-Contract Actions

§3040 Benefit Conferred Upon Defendant – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3041 Benefit Conferred – Money Paid

§3042 Benefit Conferred – Property Transferred

§3043 Benefit Not Required

§3043.1 Innocent Agent

§3043.2 Agent With Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Rights

§3043.3 Intentional Wrongdoer

§3044 Services Requested by Defendant

§3050 Benefit Conferred Upon Defendant – Defendant to Plaintiff

§3051 Benefit Conferred – Money Paid

§3052 Benefit Conferred – Property Transferred

30-807 QuasI-contracts

§3053 Benefit Not Required

§3053.1 Innocent Agent

§3053.2 Agent With Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Rights

§3053.3 Intentional Wrongdoer

§3054 Services Requested by Defendant

§3060 Unjust Enrichment – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3061 Benefits Voluntarily Conferred

§3062 Benefits Conferred Upon Defendant’s Discharge of Own Duty

§3063 Benefit Conferred Due to Mistake of Fact

§3064 Benefit Conferred Due to Fraud

§3065 Benefit Conferred Due to Coercion

§3065.1 Benefit Conferred Under Duress

§3065.2 Benefit Conferred Under Threat of Wrongful Legal Proceedings

§3066 Services Performed at Request of Defendant

§3070 Unjust Enrichment – Defendant to Plaintiff

§3071 Benefits Voluntarily Conferred

§3072 Benefits Conferred Upon Defendant’s Discharge of Own Duty

§3073 Benefit Conferred Due to Mistake of Fact

§3074 Benefit Conferred Due to Fraud

§3075 Benefit Conferred Due to Coercion

§3075.1 Benefit Conferred Under Duress

§3075.2 Benefit Conferred Under Threat of Wrongful Legal Proceedings

§3076 Services Performed at Request of Defendant

§3080 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases – Plaintiff to Defendant

§3081 Benefit Voluntarily Conferred

§3082 No Benefit Conferred

§3083 Assumed Risk of Mistake

§3084 Failure to Restore Consideration

§3085 Plaintiff in Pari Delicto

§3086 Defendant’s Status as a Bona Fide Purchaser

§3090 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases – Defendant to Plaintiff

§3091 Benefit Voluntarily Conferred

§3092 No Benefit Conferred

§3093 Assumed Risk of Mistake

§3094 Failure to Restore Consideration

§3095 Plaintiff in Pari Delicto

§3096 Defendant’s Status as a Bona Fide Purchaser

§30100 Remedies in Quasi-Contract Cases – Plaintiff to Defendant

§30110 Remedies in Quasi-Contract Cases – Defendant to Plaintiff

§30120 Investigatory Interrogatories

§30121 Witnesses

§30122 Expert Identification

§30123 Surveillance

§30124 Insurance

§30125 Due Diligence in Preparation of Response

§3000Model InterrogatorIes 30-808

§3000 Introduction

As most practitioners are aware, factual situations frequently arise in which recovery may not be had under tradi-

tional contract theory, but equity nevertheless requires that a defendant not be unjustly enriched at plaintiff’s expense.

In such situations the law may afford plaintiff a remedy under the theory of “quasi-contract,” which is sometimes

described as a contract “implied in law.” In general, this terminology refers to an “obligation created without regard

to the intention of the parties which is designed to restore the aggrieved party to his or her former position by the

return of the thing or its equivalent in money.” (See Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts (10th ed.) §1013

at 1102.) Where the legal requisites for quasi-contractual recovery are met, the plaintiff is entitled to recover under

a theory of restitution. (Id.)

Because of the broad array of social interactions that might be claimed to support recovery outside the parame-

ters established by the law of contracts, it is not possible to catalogue all of the factual situations in which a claim

for quasi-contractual recovery might be advanced. For this reason, the law of quasi-contracts has developed under

the umbrella of certain “underlying principles” which the courts have utilized to afford or deny recovery based on

the facts of individual cases. These underlying principles specify generally that where a person (1) obtains a benefit

that (2) he or she may not justly retain, the recipient is (3) required to make restitution to the other. (See generally

Restatement 3d, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §1.)

Since quasi-contractual recovery may be had without respect to the intentions of the parties based upon the general

principles identified above, certain confining principles have also developed to limit recovery where the equities of

plaintiff’s claim are outweighed by countervailing social policies. For example, it is often observed that the benefit

must be conferred as a result of mistake, fraud, coercion or request; a benefit conferred officiously may not be recov-

ered because under such circumstances, its retention by the recipient is not unjust. (See generally Witkin, Summary

of California Law, Contracts (10th ed.) §1020 at 1109; Restatement 3d, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §2.) As

with the circumstances in which recovery may be afforded, the policies which might be invoked to preclude recovery

are fact-specific and therefore can be categorized but not exhaustively listed.

Given the foregoing, the purpose of this chapter is to provide analysis of and interrogatories relating to common

issues that arise where plaintiff seeks recovery under a theory of quasi-contract. As is the case throughout this book,

the analysis and interrogatories are organized according to the elements of plaintiff’s cause of action and the affirma-

tive defenses thereto; each of these issues is treated from both the plaintiff and defense perspectives.

§3010 Elements of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action

As indicated above, a cause of action for quasi-contractual recovery requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that:

(1) plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant; and (2) under the circumstances, allowing the defendant to retain

the benefit would be unjust. (See generally Ajaxo v. E‑Trade Group (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21.) This chapter con-

tains legal analysis and interrogatories exploring the parties’ respective contentions regarding each of these essential

elements, and does so from both the plaintiff and defense perspectives.

§3020 Defenses in Quasi-Contract Cases

As suggested above, the law recognizes a number of defenses that might be asserted in quasi-contract actions. In

many instances these defenses seek to adjust the equities that exist when a benefit has in fact been conferred, as where

the benefit was voluntarily conferred or the plaintiff assumed the risk of the transaction. Other defenses effectuate

broader social policies that preclude recovery, such as where the parties are in pari delicto or are equally innocent in the

transaction. While a complete analysis of every instance in which equity may preclude recovery is beyond the scope of

this work, this chapter does include interrogatories allowing discovery of the facts, witnesses and writings upon which

the parties rely in litigating many of the defenses that are routinely asserted in litigation asserting quasi-contractual

claims. Once again, the analysis and interrogatories are presented from both the plaintiff and defense perspectives.