Implied-in-Law vs Quasi Contract
<p>Based on my understanding an "implied-in-fact" contract is one where a moving party acts to benefit the responding party, and where the responding party was aware of the expectation of the moving party to be compensated, and will be determined to be an actual contract based on conduct.</p>

<p>Whereas, an "implied-in-law" contract is an equitable theory in the absence of a contract that the court will determine is necessary to become a contract in order to prevent unjust enrichment.</p>

<p>My question is what's the difference between the term "quasi-contract" and "implied-in-law" contract?</p>

<p>"Quasi contracts" and "contracts implied in law" largely refer to the same thing, as far as I'm aware. For example,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The law recognizes two distinct types of implied contracts; namely, contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in law, commonly referred to as quasi contracts...</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1555034627624746463" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier 219 Tenn. 45, 53 (Tenn. 1966)</a>;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Quasi contracts — contracts implied in law — are not true contracts...</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://cite.case.law/kan/154/175/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sharp v. Sharp, 154 Kan. 175, 117 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1941)</a>;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...The third category is called an implied in law contract, or quasi contract...</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=57384730515858559" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Continental Forest Prod., Inc. v. Chandler Sup. Co. 95 Idaho 739, 741 (Idaho 1974)</a>.</p>

contract-law remedies