Under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which of the following scenarios would create a quasi-contractual obligation to reimburse? 

Section 68 provides: "If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person." This section creates an obligation by operation of law (quasi-contract), not by agreement of the parties. Essential elements are: (i) the recipient must be incapable of contracting (minor, lunatic, drunkard); (ii) the supplies must be "necessaries" – ordinary requirements suited to the person's standard of living; (iii) supplies may be to the incapable person or someone they are legally bound to support. Importantly, in A v. B (example in the Act), if A supplies a lunatic B with necessaries, A is entitled to reimbursement from B's property even without any contract. The rationale, as articulated in leading cases, is prevention of unjust enrichment – the law will not permit an incapable person or their estate to gain at the expense of a person who provided essential supplies.