A conventional quasi-contract may result from the delivery of a pizza to the wrong address, i.e. not to the person who paid for it. If the person at the wrong address does not address the error and keeps the pizza instead, one might look like you have accepted the food and therefore be forced to pay for it. A court could then decide to issue a quasi-contract requiring the taker to reimburse the cost of meals to the party who purchased it or to the pizzeria if he then delivered a second cake to the buyer. The restitution prescribed by the quasi-treaty aims to find a fair solution to the situation. A “near” or constructive contract is a consequence of the law. An “implicit” contract is an implication of fact. In the first case, the contract is a simple fiction imposed to adapt the case to a particular remedy. In the latter case, the treaty is a fact that is rightly inferred. In one of them, the intention is despised; in the other, it is found and applied. In one of them, the obligation defines the contract; in the other, the treaty defines duty. This shows that one person cannot entertain unfair benefits at the expense of another person. These obligations are generally referred to as quasi-contractual obligations, for lack of a better designation or a better name.

It would be better to explain that the quasi-contract is the contractual obligation, which is not due to the fact that the parties have approved it, but because the law does not allow one person to have an unfair advantage at the expense of another party. There must be certain aspects to enable a judge to issue a quasi-contract: contracts are in principle implicit or implied. The first comes into play through behaviour, words or negotiations between the parties. The statutory contract is not a real contract. It would be unfair to call it a treaty. It occurs when a law, regardless of an agreement, aims to achieve the objectives of justice. In Keener, there are different types of contracts. The scholarly author says that:-[xv] In accordance with the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the term “contract” means, according to section 2 (h) as a legally enforceable agreement. The essential elements of a valid contract are; Quasi-contracts define the obligation of one party to the other if it is held by the property of the original party. These parties may not necessarily have reached a prior agreement.

The agreement is imposed by a judge as a remedy if Person A owes a debt to Person B because he is in possession of The property of Person A, directly or accidentally. The contract becomes enforceable if Person B decides to keep the object in question without paying it. It has been found that these contracts and quasi-contracts are a matter of practical importance. The concept is related to the agreement and commitments between the parties. The quasi-contracts are different from those that are generally expressed in such a way that they contain all the terms in words, whereas in the latter case, the conditions are due to the behaviour of the parties. The result of the contract as well as the quasi-contract are similar to those of the contracts. In the case of the claim for damages, both are very similar to those of the contracts, because quasi-contract Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when remedies for violation of quasi-contracts, as well as for violation of express contracts in many sections of the Indian Contract Act of 1872.