Quasi contractQuasi contract

Group 8Group 8

1. Tống Thị Thu Huyền1. Tống Thị Thu Huyền

2. Nguyễn Thị Thanh 2. Nguyễn Thị Thanh HuyềnHuyền

3. Đỗ Thị Huyền3. Đỗ Thị Huyền

4. Nguyễn Tùng Linh4. Nguyễn Tùng Linh

Case study 6 Case study 6

Chapter 9 , page 178 Chapter 9 , page 178

CONTENTCONTENT

Case analysisCase analysis 1

US precedentUS precedent2

Vietnam implicationVietnam implication3

I : Case analysisI : Case analysis

Parties :Parties : VACVAC vs. vs. DOCSDOCS

Fact : VAC contracted with DOCS for providing Fact : VAC contracted with DOCS for providing phone servicesphone services

VAC later VAC later filed for bankruptcyfiled for bankruptcy , but it , but it had sent for DOCS 3 checks before filing and 3 had sent for DOCS 3 checks before filing and 3 checks after filling.checks after filling.

Then trustee of VAC sought to Then trustee of VAC sought to recover the recover the moneymoney under theory of under theory of Quasi contractQuasi contract ..

Will he Will he recover recover the funds ?the funds ?

What is quasi contract?What is quasi contract?

Other name : implied-in- law Other name : implied-in- law contract .contract .

Made possible by doctrine of Made possible by doctrine of “quantum meruit” “quantum meruit”

A quasi contract is a contract that A quasi contract is a contract that exists by order of a court , not by exists by order of a court , not by agreement of the parties .agreement of the parties .

( Continuous )( Continuous )

It’s created to avoid injustice in some It’s created to avoid injustice in some cases in which some parties can cases in which some parties can unjustly enrich at the expense of unjustly enrich at the expense of others .others .

Claims on unjust enrichment always Claims on unjust enrichment always require restitution .require restitution .

Exceptions of quasi contractExceptions of quasi contract

Person receives unknowingly .Person receives unknowingly .

Benefit is believed as a gift .Benefit is believed as a gift .

Determinants of unjust factorsDeterminants of unjust factors

Ignorance / powerlessness .Ignorance / powerlessness .

Unconscionability .Unconscionability .

Partial failure of consideration .Partial failure of consideration .

Absence of consideration .Absence of consideration .

Conclusions Conclusions

Is there unjust enrichment ? Is there unjust enrichment ?

YES !YES !

Is there an absence of justification Is there an absence of justification for this enrichment ? for this enrichment ?

YES !YES !

II . US precedentII . US precedent

Laucent technologies vs. AFECT Laucent technologies vs. AFECT

2001 WL 725372( Mo. App. 2001)2001 WL 725372( Mo. App. 2001)

Thomas H. Newton, JudgeThomas H. Newton, Judge

Fact and procedureFact and procedure

Lucent and Mid west entered a Lucent and Mid west entered a contract in which Lucent agree to contract in which Lucent agree to rent Kisan city work area to Mid westrent Kisan city work area to Mid west

Mid west then employed AFECT to Mid west then employed AFECT to repair Kisan area according to repair Kisan area according to Lucent’s recommendation.Lucent’s recommendation.

After AFECT had done repair, Lucent After AFECT had done repair, Lucent refuse to pay for AFECT because refuse to pay for AFECT because Lucent did not employ AFECTLucent did not employ AFECT

US case- ConclusionUS case- Conclusion

Kisan area belongs to LucentKisan area belongs to Lucent

Lucent did know about AFECT’s workLucent did know about AFECT’s work

Lucent must pay $124,527.8 for Lucent must pay $124,527.8 for AFECT’s quatum meruit claim.AFECT’s quatum meruit claim.

III . Vietnam implicationIII . Vietnam implication

ATM - Vietcombank’s mistakeATM - Vietcombank’s mistake

Mr. Nguyen The Hung vs. Mr. Nguyen The Hung vs. Vietcombank.Vietcombank.

4 4 millionmillion VND VND vs. vs. 48.5 48.5 billionbillion VND.VND.

Does Mr Hung Does Mr Hung commit the lawcommit the lawif he uses this amount of money ?if he uses this amount of money ?

Representative of Law department of Foreign- Representative of Law department of Foreign- trade bank: Mr. Hung trade bank: Mr. Hung must repay moneymust repay money to bank according to term to bank according to term 214 of Civil law of 214 of Civil law of Vietnam.Vietnam.

Lawyer Tran Cong Ly - HCM lawyers’ association: Lawyer Tran Cong Ly - HCM lawyers’ association: Mr. Hung Mr. Hung can usecan use this amount of money as a this amount of money as a gift.gift.

Mr. Nguyen Ngoc thong- HCM lawyers’ Mr. Nguyen Ngoc thong- HCM lawyers’ association: Rule association: Rule “ “ ĐẮC LỢI VÔ CĂNĐẮC LỢI VÔ CĂN ” ”