Application of Law
Advice to Julie will be provided in consideration with these sections
and subsections. At times there are certain situations in which particular individuals are
needed for the performance of an obligation irrespective of the fact that no contract has been
breached nor there is an existence of commitment of any tort.
A Quasi Contract is referred to as a type of fictional contract, the creation of which has been
done by the courts for the purposes of equity and not for the purposes of contract. A Quasi
Contract cannot be considered as an actual contract [Armory v. Delamirie, (1722)]. However,
it has been considered as a lawful substitute developed for imposing equity amongst both the
parties involved. The concept related to the quasi contract is the one stating that there should
be the formation of contract even if in actual sense there had not been any necessary element
involved. These elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, free consent, and
agreement [Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc., (1995)].
This type of a contract is used in case when the court considers it to be appropriate for the
creation of an obligation upon the party who is not in a contract for the avoidance of injustice
and for ensuring fairness [Bridges v Hawkesworth, (1851)]. This type of a contract is invoked
in the situation of restitution and the connection is made with the similar concept.
As per the case provided, the concepts and sections related to Quasi Contract can be used. In
reference to the concept of lost and found, there is section 71 of the Singapore Contract Act.
This section will be considered.
As per section 71, in there is a finder of lost goods, court has the authority for the creation of
Quasi Contract. This section has laid down the responsibility with respect to the finder of a
good. Also, as per the same section, it has been stated that an individual who has found goods