Also known as: implied in law contract · implied-in-law contracts · quasi-contract · quasi contract
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An obligation imposed by law on one party to pay for a benefit received from another when retention of the benefit would result in unjust enrichment. No actual agreement or promise is required. Courts use the label to supply a restitutionary remedy measured by the reasonable value of the benefit conferred.
Grant quit her job and used personal savings to pay off the LLC's loan after Gavin repeatedly tied the contributions to their upcoming marriage. Gavin later ended the engagement and kept the benefits. A court imposes an implied-in-law contract so Grant recovers the value of the payments and labor to prevent Gavin's unjust enrichment.
Susan provided years of homemaking and business assistance to her partner without any express agreement. After separation the partner retained the increased value of the jointly held assets. The court recognizes an implied-in-law contract and awards restitution measured by the reasonable value of the services to avoid unjust enrichment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Wife supported the household and paid tuition while husband earned an MBA. After divorce the degree increased his earning capacity but the couple had no contract allocating that value. The court refuses to impose an implied-in-law contract because the contributions were made within the marriage and restitution would not prevent unjust enrichment under the governing standard.
No. It is a court-imposed obligation that exists even though the parties never formed an agreement. The label supplies a restitutionary remedy to prevent unjust enrichment when one party has conferred a measurable benefit on another.
Supporting sources
A court will impose the obligation when one spouse or partner confers a necessary benefit on the family unit and the other retains it without payment under circumstances that would make retention inequitable. The elements are a conferred benefit, appreciation of the benefit, and inequitable retention.
Supporting sources
Recovery is measured by the reasonable value of the benefit conferred, often called quantum meruit. The plaintiff recovers the amount the defendant was unjustly enriched, not expectation damages or lost profits.
Supporting sources
…L.Q. 101, 110-14 (Summer 1976). [^maj-20]: For a discussion regarding the relationship between express, implied-in-fact, and implied-in-law contracts, see Steffes, supra , 95 Wis. 2d at 497 & n.4. [^maj-21]: See, e.g., Harman v. Rogers , 147 Vt. 11, 510 A.2d 161, 164-65 (1986); Collins v. Davis , 68 N.C. App. 588, 315 S.E.2d 759,…