Legal Definitions - contract implied in law

A contract implied in law, also known as a quasi-contract or constructive contract, is not a true contract formed by an agreement between parties. Instead, it is a legal obligation imposed by a court to prevent one person from unfairly benefiting at another's expense, a concept known as unjust enrichment. The law creates this obligation purely for the sake of fairness and justice, even when no actual promise or agreement was made between the parties.

Unlike a traditional contract, a contract implied in law does not require mutual consent, an offer, or acceptance. It is a legal fiction used solely to provide a remedy when one party has received a benefit under circumstances where it would be unjust to allow them to keep that benefit without paying for it. Courts typically apply this principle when:

• One party has provided a benefit to another.
• The party receiving the benefit was aware of it.
• It would be unfair for the party to keep the benefit without compensating the provider.

It's important to distinguish this from a contract implied in fact, where parties *do* intend to create a contract through their actions or conduct, even if they don't explicitly state the terms. A contract implied in law, conversely, is imposed by the court regardless of the parties' intentions, solely to achieve a just outcome.

Examples:

• Emergency Medical Services: Imagine Sarah collapses unconscious in a public park. A passing doctor, Dr. Lee, immediately provides life-saving first aid and calls an ambulance. Sarah is rushed to the hospital and makes a full recovery. Dr. Lee later sends Sarah a bill for the emergency services rendered.

  This scenario illustrates a contract implied in law because Sarah received a significant benefit (life-saving medical care) from Dr. Lee. Although Sarah was unconscious and could not agree to the services, it would be unjust for her to retain the benefit of Dr. Lee's professional assistance without providing reasonable compensation. The law imposes an obligation on Sarah to pay Dr. Lee to prevent her unjust enrichment.

• Mistaken Home Improvement: A landscaping company, "Green Thumb Gardens," is hired to install a new irrigation system at 123 Oak Street. Due to a clerical error, their crew mistakenly installs the elaborate system at 125 Oak Street, the home of Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson is home during the installation, watches the crew work for two days, and even compliments their efficiency, but says nothing about the mistake. After the work is complete, Green Thumb Gardens realizes its error and sends Mr. Henderson a bill for the value of the irrigation system.

  Here, Mr. Henderson received a clear benefit (a new irrigation system) from Green Thumb Gardens. He was aware of the benefit being conferred and allowed the work to proceed without objection. It would be inequitable for Mr. Henderson to enjoy the value of a new irrigation system without paying for it, even though he never formally agreed to the service. A court would likely impose a contract implied in law, obligating Mr. Henderson to pay Green Thumb Gardens for the reasonable value of the system to prevent his unjust enrichment.