Also known as: implied-in-law contract · implied in law contract · implied in law contracts · quasi-contract · quasi contract · contract implied in law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A contract imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment when one party confers a measurable benefit on another in the absence of a valid agreement. The law creates the obligation regardless of the parties' intent so that the recipient cannot retain the benefit without paying its reasonable value.
Grant quit her job and used personal savings to pay off Federal Shipping LLC's truck loan after Gavin repeatedly linked the contributions to their upcoming marriage. When Gavin called off the wedding, Grant sued for the value of her labor and payments. The court imposed an implied-in-law contract so Gavin could not retain the benefits without compensating Grant for the actual expenditures made in preparation.
Susan provided homemaking and business services to James over several years while they lived together and jointly accumulated assets. After separation, Susan sought recovery for the value of her contributions. The court recognized an implied-in-law contract to avoid unjust enrichment and awarded restitution measured by the reasonable value of the benefits James retained.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Michelle performed household services and managed property for Lee during their long-term relationship without a formal agreement. After the relationship ended, Michelle claimed compensation for the benefits conferred. The court allowed recovery under an implied-in-law contract to prevent Lee from retaining the value of those services without payment.
An implied-in-law contract is created by the court to prevent unjust enrichment even when the parties never manifested mutual assent. An implied-in-fact contract arises from the parties' actual conduct that shows they intended to contract.
Supporting sources
A court imposes the obligation when one partner conferred measurable benefits such as services or property improvements and retention of those benefits by the other would be unjust. Recovery is measured by the reasonable value of the benefit conferred rather than by any expectation of future marriage or financial position.
Supporting sources
Yes. When no enforceable contract exists, the law still allows restitution for benefits conferred if retention would constitute unjust enrichment. The remedy supplies payment for the reasonable value of the performance rather than enforcing the parties' original expectations.
Supporting sources
…in Keene v. Keene (1962) 57 Cal.2d 657 [21 Cal. Rptr. 593, 371 P.2d 329], the claimant forwent reliance upon theories of contract implied in law or fact. Asserting that she had worked on her partner's ranch and that her labor had enhanced its value, she confined her cause of action to the claim that the court should impress a…