They were incorrect because quasi-contracts apply only when something was lost by one party out of the negligence of another party. In this case however something positive, a free wax, was the result of E-Z Car Wash's negligence, meaning there would be no quasi-contract. They were incorrect because quasi-contracts apply only when something was lost by one party out of the negligence of another party. In this case however something positive, a free wax, was the result of E-Z Car Wash's negligence, meaning there would be no quasi-contract. They were incorrect because quasi-contracts apply only when something was lost by one party out of the negligence of another party. In this case however something positive, a free wax, was the result of E-Z
