Quasi Contract

Should you ever have to compensate another person for having accidently conferred some benefit on you through no fault of your own?
According to the legal theory of Prevention of Unjust Enrichment, An individual who benefits from contracts accidentally accomplished on him without his consent is supposed to compensate for the benefits (Woodward, 2000). Even though he did not solicit the services and was not aware of the duties being performed, he has benefited from them and the requirements of a quasi-contract must be fulfilled in such a case if justice has to be imposed. Therefore, quasi contract in such cases is performed by the legal authority to ensure fairness since the activities ought to be performed, even though was not.
In the case illustrated of a neighbor whose house was mistakenly painted instead the neighboring house identical to his, then quasi legal contract’s requirements must be accomplished. Both parties are surprised by the paintings outcomes. It therefore means that it was not an intention to either of them. The house painted basically required painting even though the owner had not ordered for the services. With the painting benefits conferred thereof, he cannot sue for the compensation since there is no loss incurred. The claimant however will incur losses if not compensated.
In order to validate compensation to services, it is necessary to analyze the actions in line with whether the defendant was enriched and whether the enrichments were at the expense of the claimant. It is also necessary to examine justice in the enrichment and find out whether the defendant has a valid defense. Finally, the court determines the kind of available remedies and then orders for a just compensation to the claimant (Berendt, 2007).

References
Woodward, F. C. (2000). The law of quasi contracts. Boston: Little, Brown.
Berendt, G. E. (2007). Contract law and practice. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender.