In classical common law jurisprudence, quasi contracts emerge not from *consensus ad idem*, but as legal fictions to prevent unjust enrichment. Rooted in the doctrine of *quantum meruit* and codified in Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, quasi contracts exemplify the principle of restitution. These are *sui generis* obligations, distinct from tort and contract. Unlike express or implied contracts, quasi contracts do not stem from actual agreement but are enforced on the basis of constructive obligations. Courts invoke this doctrine when one party, without any contractual intent, is conferred a benefit that it would be inequitable to retain. The maxim *nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura*, serves as the jurisprudential bedrock of this doctrine. For instance, under Section 70, a person who lawfully does something for another without intending it as a gift, and the other person enjoys the benefit, is entitled to compensation. Similarly, Section 72 contemplates restitution for payments made under mistake or coercion. Importantly, these provisions are *sui generis*, standing apart from traditional contractual frameworks.
While quasi contractual liability is strict and non-volitional, it is not punitive. The underlying aim is to achieve equitable realignment of benefits where conventional legal remedies may falter. These principles underscore the idea that law must not merely follow rigid formalism but must reflect evolving moral imperatives. In this light, quasi contracts act as instruments for ensuring that fairness prevails where technical legal constructs fall short. The Indian legal system, in particular, has robustly incorporated these equitable principles, affirming that legal rights are not solely derivative of formal assent, but also from ethical imperatives.