There are several kinds of contracts. Some bind parties wholly, while others do not.

The terms of
the contract determine whether a contract can be fully executed.

Valid and Void Contracts

A valid contract is a written or expressed agreement between two parties to provide a product or
service. There are essentially six elements of a contract that make it a legal and binding
document. In order for a contract to be enforceable, it must contain:

 An offer that specifically details exactly what will be provided

 Acceptance, or the agreement by the other party to the offer presented
 Consideration, or the money or something of interest being exchanged between the
parties
 Capacity of the parties in terms of age and mental ability
 Intent of both parties to carry out their promise
 Object of a contract is legal and not against public policy or in violation of law

In other words, a contract is enforceable when both parties agree to something, back the promise
up with money or something of value, both are in sound mind and intend to carry out their
promise and what they promise to do is within the law.
So, if Dennis offers to sell a puppy to Jean for the sum of $500 and Jean delivers the cash for the
canine, providing Jean and Dennis are of age, the dog is rightfully Dennis' to sell and there is
nothing illegal about the transaction, the parties have a valid contract. There are contracts that do
not contain all of the elements, and for those contracts, the courts make the determination as to
whether the contract can be enforced.
A void contract is missing an element. In this case, the contract does not have to be terminated
in court. It simply does not have to be executed, and both parties can walk away. Suppose
Dennis offers to sell his neighbor's dog to Jean. This would make the contract between the
parties void because Dennis does not actually own the pooch. This means the sixth element,
legal object, wasn't present. It is illegal to sell another person's personal property without
permission.

Voidable and Unenforceable Contracts

A contract that is voidable sort of works the same way, but there is an option for the parties to
enforce the terms even though an element is missing, or some other issue exists with the terms.
The decision to enforce the contract is between the parties. In a voidable contract, one of the
parties is legally bound to honor the contract. So, a voidable contract can be executed, even
though there is an element missing, if the party not legally bound agrees to move forward.
Let's say Jean and Dennis negotiated the dog sale over a few cocktails. This may change
things. Capacity is an element that requires parties to be of mature age, free of mental illness
and not intoxicated. If Jean wakes the next morning to the bark of a dog and doesn't remember
making the purchase, the contract may be voidable. In fact, there are several ways a contract
may be voidable:

 One or both of the parties wish to terminate the contract because an element was not
present
 One of the parties was coerced into the contract

In this case, Jean may ask Dennis to take the dog back and return her money. Dennis can return
the cash and take the pup, or he can ask the court to decide. A good defense for Dennis may be
to argue that Jean was not intoxicated at the time of the sale. Jean may contend that she was
coerced by Dennis' offer to buy her several cocktails during negotiations.
Some contracts are simply unenforceable. This means when the contract terms are too
confusing, unclear or lack several elements. The Doctrine of Laches may also be used to make
a contract unenforceable. This means the performance of the promises in the contract were
unnecessarily delayed or the damaged party did not file a claim in court in sufficient time.
To clear this up, when Jean realized that she had purchased a dog from Dennis, she scoured her
apartment for any documentation of the sale. She came across a cocktail napkin with a few
vague words. It actually read, 'If you want a dog, you can have him for whatever you can afford,
but I want $10. Pay me whenever. Take him tonight or tomorrow.' The contract also read 'Paid in
full.'
The contract terms were vague. In fact, some of the words were misspelled. It would likely be
that the court would rule this contract unenforceable. Jean should be able to return the dog
immediately without consequence.

Lesson Summary
To sum things up, there are several kinds of contracts. The elements of a contract determine
whether the contract is valid, void, voidable, or unenforceable.
Contract elements include:

 Offer that specifically details exactly what will be provided

 Acceptance, or the agreement by the other party to the offer presented
 Consideration, or the money or something of interest being exchanged between the
parties
 Capacity of the parties in terms of age and mental ability
 Intent of both parties to carry out their promise
 Object of the contract is legal and not against public policy or in violation of law

A valid contract is a written or expressed agreement between two parties to provide a product or
service. A void contract is missing an element. In a voidable contract, there is an option for the
parties to enforce the terms even though an element is missing, or some other issue exists with
the terms.

A quasi-contract exists in the absence of a written contract and may be court ordered to avoid
one party gaining at the expense of another party's actions.

Unjust Enrichment and Quasi-Contracts

Have you ever wished a pizza would just show up at your door? How about if that pizza has
mushrooms and pepperoni on it? Better yet, how about if that pizza is free?
By accepting a free pizza that is not intended for you, you have been what the court
calls unjustly enriched, meaning you profited at the expense of another without making an effort
to make restitution.
There are some elements that must exist. The plaintiff must have provided the defendant with
something of value with the expectation of being paid. The defendant accepted or acknowledged
receipt of the thing of value. And the plaintiff must demonstrate that it would be unjust or unfair
for the defendant to receive the item without paying for it - mostly financial fairness.
In this case, the pizza shop owner has every right to sue, and if this case were to make it to a
courtroom, the judge would require a quasi-contract. This is also known as an implied contract
and forces the unjustly enriched party to make restitution for the products or services received,
even in the absence of a written contract. The restitution is called quantum meruit and is
determined by the degree to which the defendant was unjustly enriched.
Paying for a pizza is minimal when compared to mounting medical bills. Let's analyze a case
where medical treatment was provided without an expressed, written contract.

Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos (1980)

Sometime in 1980, Mary Dobos was rushed to Boca Raton Community Hospital. During her time
in the intensive care unit, Dr. Rosen ordered nursing care around the clock while in the hospital,
along with 48 hours of nursing care once at home, and two-weeks of care thereafter.
Dobos accepted care from Nursing Care Services, Inc., and the bill exceeded $3,800. Dobos
refused to pay. Dobos claimed that she never contracted these services and did not understand
that she would be responsible to pay. It seemed that Dobos believed her insurance company
would compensate the nursing agency. Unfortunately, this belief does not pardon her. She is still
responsible for paying.
Nursing Care Associates could have, during the course of treatment without compensation,
pulled their services. However, they did not. They continued to provide Dobos with the level of
care prescribed by Rosen.
In the eyes of the court, Nursing Care Associates did, in fact, provide the services requested and
must be compensated. The appeal was remanded in lower court with instructions to enter a final
judgment for the amount of $3,723.90 plus fees and court costs.
This case demonstrates that a quasi-contract or a contract implied by law is just as enforceable
as an expressed and written contract.

Lesson Summary
A quasi-contract, also known as an implied contract, forces the unjustly enriched party to make
restitution for the products or services received, even in the absence of a written contract.
The issue surrounding the enforcement of a quasi-contract is in the notion of unjust enrichment,
meaning one party profits at the expense of another without making an effort to make restitution.
There are some elements that must exist. The plaintiff must have provided the defendant with
something of value with the expectation of being paid. The defendant accepted or acknowledged
receipt of the thing of value. And the plaintiff must demonstrate that it would be unjust or unfair
for the defendant to receive the item without paying for it - mostly for financial fairness.
When a person sues for breach of quasi-contract, they receive restitution and it is called
Quantum meruit and is determined by the degree to which the defendant was unjustly enriched.

In our case nursing care services sued the patient for not paying for the services rendered and won

Learning outcome after reviewing this video lesson you sd be able to recognise when a quasi
contract is and how it may apply to unjust enrichmenets for benefits undeserved