Quasi contracts
As already mentioned, quasi contracts were legally enforceable obligations broadly similar to contracts that did not arise either from contract or from
The law of obligations: contracts 201 delict.
Quasi contract was a residual category that encompassed obligations arising from unjustified enrichment, unauthorized management of another’s affairs, relations between and among co-owners, the tutor’s business concerning the ward’s affairs, and an heir’s instructions in a will (Inst. 3.27). We can find some similarities between the position of a tutor or a manager of another’s affairs and the position of a mandatary, the joint owners or heirs, and the contract of partnership, as well as between a mutuum and an undue payment (solutio indebiti). We will pay attention only to negotiorum gestio and undue payment. In both cases, obligations arose not from an agreement between parties but from a performance that entailed rights and duties.Negotiorum gestio
Negotiorum gestio was the management of another’s affairs without his request, instruction, or authorization: repairing a neighbor’s roof, settling a debt for him, becoming a surety, purchasing oil or wine for a friend, and defending him in a trial, among other things. Negotiorum gestio was based on friendship, helpfulness, and solidarity (humanitas), and it was especially useful in case of absence or emergency. For this reason, negotiorum gestio was gratuitous but not a gift, since expenses must be reimbursed to the manager (gestor) by the principal (dominus negotii).
Negotiorum gestio was quite similar to mandate but without an initial agreement. Thus, if the principal gave his consent after having knowledge of the business, the negotiorum gestio became mandate. Like the mandatary, the manager had to perform his service to the end and in the best interest of the principal, not his own interest (e.g., to make a donation or perform a contractual duty). The result of the manager’s service did not necessarily have to be useful, successful, or beneficial. It was enough that the service was reasonable (utiliter coeptum). The manager was liable for fraud (dolo) and negligence (culpa).
The principal could bring the actio negotiorum gestorum against the manager to claim restitution of anything acquired by him during his management, as well as for damages derived from negligence (actio directa). On the other hand, the manager had the actio contraria for reimbursement of expenses or compensation for damages.
More on the topic Quasi contracts:
- Quasi-Contracts
- A fourth category of obligations referred to in the Institutes of Justinian are the obligations arising from quasi-delicts (obligationes quasi ex delicto or quasi ex maleficio).
- Quasi-contractual and quasi-delictual obligations
- Consensual contracts (contractus consensu) were contracts constituted by the mere agreement (consensus) of the parties.
- Verbal contracts (contractus verbis)were contracts that were created by the use of certain formal words (verbis solemnibus).
- Quasi delicts
- The Ideas behind the Quasi Categories
- The Content of the Quasi Categories
- Quasi-contract
- III. QUASI-CONTRACT
- ‘Quasi-contract’ is an unsatisfactory term applied to certain specific obligations which did not arise from contract or delict but were legally enforceable.
- QUASI-DELICT
- Other Quasi-Contractual Condictiones