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.
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.
My question is what's the difference between the term "quasi-contract" and "implied-in-law" contract?