A Quasi Agreement

In this hypothetical example, since you had paid for the meal, you did not get your meal, other people accepted, ate and did not pay for your meal, the dish can impose on the other person a quasi-contract that requires him to pay you while you did not have a contract with the other customer at the restaurant. Quasi-contracts describe the obligation of one party to another, if the latter is in possession of the assets of the original party. These parties do not necessarily have to have entered into a prior agreement. The agreement is legally imposed by a judge as an appeal if person A owes something to person B, because he indirectly or accidentally comes into possession of person A`s property. The contract becomes enforceable if person B decides to keep the object in question without paying. A quasi-example of a contract includes an agreement between at least two parties who previously had no obligation to each other. It is a contract that is legally recognized in court. More precisely, this type of contract is established by court order and not between the parties concerned. However, a court cannot conclude a quasi-contract if the parties have concluded an effective contract.

A quasi-contract (or a tacit contract or a constructive contract) is a fictitious contract recognized by a court. The notion of quasi-treaty can be attributed to Roman law and is still a term used in some modern legal systems. According to common law jurisdictions, quasi-contracts aprouts ad ad in latin as indebitatus assumpsit, which means being in debt or having incurred debt. This legal principle was how courts induce one party to pay the other as if they had already entered into a contract or agreement. The defendant`s obligation to be bound by the contract is therefore considered implied by law. From its first uses, the quasi-contract was generally imposed to enforce restitution obligations. A classic quasi-agreement can result from the delivery of a pizza to the wrong address, that is, not to the person who paid for it. If the person at the wrong address does not make the mistake and keeps the pizza instead, it could be seen that he has accepted the food and is therefore forced to pay for it. A court could then decide to establish a quasi-contract obliging the recipient of the pizza to reimburse the costs of the food to the party who bought it or to the pizzeria if he then delivered a second cake to the buyer. . .

.

print

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.