In Defence of Quasi‐Contract

24 Pages Posted: 22 Dec 2011

See all articles by Dan Priel

Dan Priel

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School

Date Written: January 2012


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.

Suggested Citation

Priel, Dan, In Defence of Quasi‐Contract (January 2012). The Modern Law Review, Vol. 75, January 2012. Available at SSRN: or

Dan Priel (Contact Author)

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School ( email )

4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics

Under construction: SSRN citations while be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information