Liability Comparison: Tort and Contractual Law in Legal Context

This report provides a comparative analysis of tort and contractual liability, highlighting their key differences and similarities. It begins by defining both tort and contractual liability, emphasizing the nature of each, and explaining how they arise from different legal foundations. The report explores the concept of duty of care, which is central to tort law, and contrasts it with the contractual obligations established through agreements. It discusses the implications of breach of contract and the legal remedies available, such as compensation and injunctions. The analysis includes a discussion on how causation, remoteness, and intentions affect the liability. Furthermore, the report references academic sources such as books and journals to support its claims and provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

Aspects of Contract

3.1 Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability
Tort liability is when the individual breach the duty of harm and status a person
and also harm the rights of individual. Contractual liability is when one group breach the
situation of policies and group will be consider under contractual liability for the injured
contract party (Appleman, Appleman and Holmes, 2016). The general contrast between
both the liability and contractual liability according to tort is when the initial result of the
applied agreements and the second is the outcome of law.
Duty care example:
Will a direver has the duty to protect and provide accurate and proper goods
condition to the people whom he is delivering. According to respected act, it is the legal
responsibility of the individual needed to managed the goods and services until the
completion of the specific assignments or task in order to overtake which make other
jeopardize (Lub and et. al., 2012). This law is often followed for the worker by their
employer, a goods and products supplier for managing the raw material quality and many
other. This is required for the the provider to provide the products and services in
accurate position and deliver in healthy condition to the users of service.
The causation determines and defines the liability extension. This is the indicator
by which the one group can proves that other group is responsible for their damages
which is considered as before the harm. This may be complex to shown while there are
another causes as well. Remoteness decides the parts of defendant in wrongful deeds for
fair judgements. This should be undertake by the defendant that they must make up all
harms or damages in case if that is within commonsensical consideration.
The action of contract breach can be considered only if the group is suffering harm
because of the breach. The tortfeasors will be applied penalties and fines or they will be
punished as imprisonments through the judgements of civil court, the defendant
compensate the plaintiff often with the money or damage fulfilment. If the tortfeasors is
committed by individual committed by the tort, then court will execute the action of
injunction. On the other hand, the court can not judgements or order for injunction under
the contract, and if only order defendant for the damage. Tort is private or civil offense in
1

which the plaintiff is rendered the compensation by the order to court in exchange of
remedy of injury or harm. Where, on the contact breach situation, this is not this does not
come under the tort law automatically (Rodwell and Gulyas, 2013). According to the tort
law, it is essential of engagements of tort for the intentions of the deeds to the other party.
 Tort is build agreement while the contract is build with the agreement.
 The injury or harm are measured that is not controlled where in contract, the harms
is scalded through the court trials on stipulations of both of the groups.
REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Appleman, J. A., Appleman, J. and Holmes, E. M., 2016. Contract Concerns: Reinsurance
Contract Formation, Validity, And Judicial Construction (Vol. 14). Appleman on
Insurance Law and Practice.
Lub, X. and et. al., 2012. Different or alike? Exploring the psychological contract and
commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management. 24(4). pp.553-573.
Rodwell, J. and Gulyas, A., 2013. The impact of the psychological contract, justice and
individual differences: nurses take it personally when employers break promises.
Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69(12). pp.2774-2785.
2