Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
A contract implied in law (or quasi-contract), unlike a true contract based upon the express or apparent intention of the parties, is not based on a promissory agreement or the apparent intention of the parties to undertake the performance in question.

Quasi-contracts or contracts implied in law are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The essential elements for an action under this theory are a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.

Quasi-contracts, therefore, are obligations created by the law for reasons of justice, not by the express or apparent intent of the parties. Thus, it may be said that obligations of this type should not properly be considered contracts at all, but a form of the remedy of restitution.

SOURCE Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
Given the information, my interpretation is that quasi-contracts are instruments and tools of equity.

Equity decides what is "just" or "fair" while keeping quiet on issues of law.