In Defence of Quasi-Contract

Dan Priel

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School

September 29, 2011

Modern Law Review, 2012
Osgoode CLPE Research Paper No. 22/2011

Restitution scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting the term quasi-contract. This essay challenges this view. It first shows that many debates among restitution scholars are in fact debates about the boundaries of consent-based liability. This point serves as introduction to the main thesis advanced in this essay, 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 understands and 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 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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 30

Keywords: unjust enrichment, restitution, quasi-contract, fairness

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 30, 2011 ; Last revised: October 21, 2014

Suggested Citation

Priel, Dan, In Defence of Quasi-Contract (September 29, 2011). Modern Law Review, 2012; Osgoode CLPE Research Paper No. 22/2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1935413

Contact Information

Dan Priel (Contact Author)
York University - Osgoode Hall Law School ( email )
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,071
Downloads: 224
Download Rank: 107,593