Also known as: implied-in-law promise · implied in law promise · implied in law promises · quasi-contract · contracts implied in law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A promise imposed by operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment when one party has conferred a benefit on another under circumstances making retention without compensation inequitable. The obligation arises independently of any actual agreement between the parties.
India Inoue quit her dispatching job and used personal savings to pay off a company truck loan after her fiancé repeatedly tied the contributions to their upcoming marriage. When he called off the wedding, she sued for recovery of those expenditures. The court allowed recovery of actual damages incurred in preparation for the marriage because the law imposes an obligation to compensate for benefits conferred in reliance on the engagement.
Iris Energy hired Equity Contracting to perform site work on land owned by Commerce Partnership. Equity completed the work and improved the property value, but Commerce refused payment claiming no direct contract existed between them. Equity recovered the reasonable value of its services because the law imposes an obligation to pay when a benefit is knowingly accepted under circumstances that would make retention without compensation inequitable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An implied-in-law promise is imposed by courts to avoid unjust enrichment even when the parties had no dealings or agreement. An implied-in-fact contract arises from the parties' actual conduct showing mutual assent.
Supporting sources
Recovery covers actual expenditures made in preparation for marriage plus loss to reputation, mental anguish, and injury to health. Expected benefits such as social or financial position are excluded.
Supporting sources
Yes when the underlying action contains a tort element and the defendant acted maliciously.
Supporting sources
No. Recovery may occur even where the parties had no dealings at all, provided a benefit was conferred, known, accepted, and retention would be inequitable.