When Harriet went away for the summer, Landry, a house painter, painted her house. He had a contract to paint a neighborâ€™s house but painted Harrietâ€™s house by mistake. When Harriet returned from vacation, Landry billed her for $3,100, which was a fair price for the work. She refused to pay. Landry claimed that she had a quasi-contractual liability for that amount. Was he correct?

Landry asserted that she was liable for that sum under a hypothetical contract. No, because Harriet was unaware of the added benefit of the painting for her home. No quasi-contract exists at all.

What is quasi-contract?

A quasi-contract is a duty imposed by the law to prevent undue gain. This is sometimes referred to as a constructive contract or a contract implied by law.

Especially if the new color decreased the value of the home, the homeowner is uninformed of the services provided and does not benefit from the painting.

As she did not approve of the paint work, the homeowner may actually consider the painter to have violated her property. It's likely that the painter won't get the money he's owed, and he might even have to cover trespass-related damage.

Hence, the significance of the quasi-contractual is aforementioned.

Learn more about on quasi-contractual, here:

https://brainly.com/question/27993061

#SPJ2