Difference between Law of Torts and Law of Contract • Aim and objectives: • Promise to be fulfil by the Allocation or prevention of parties. losses caused by unjustified act. -Legal rights and duties • Legal rights and duties imposed by the law imposed by the parties. - A Tort is violation of a right • Breach of Contract is an in rem. infringement of a ‘right in personam’. - Claim for unliquidated • Liquidated damages. damages Torts… Contract… • Privity between parties • Privity between parties. missing. • There is a place for • No consideration of motive and motive or intention. consideration.
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 is a rule departure from ‘privity’
2. Locked v. Charles-1897 purchase of sandwich 3. Whilminsto’s case in between 1897 to 1932 Rule of privity overrule and some medicine identified as a dangerous Difference between Law of Torts and Law of Crime • Nature: Civil wrong • Public wrong- tortfeasor offender
• Purpose: to grant • To protect society.
compensation to victim • Punishing the offender by • Remedy: damages imprisonment or by penalties. • Parties to the Proceedings: • Proceedings conducted in the name of the State. • Compoundability: • Non-Compondable except provided under Cr.P.C. (Section 320) Chairman Railway Board v Chandrima Das (2002)2 SCC465 • HC awarded ten lacs rupees as compensation. • In appeal before the Supreme Court it was argued that • 1.The Railway authority was not liable to pay compensation to victim who was foreigner and was not an Indian national. • 2. It was also contended that commission of the offence by the person concerned would not make the railway or Union of India liable to pay compensation to the victim of the offence. Continue… • 3. further contended that since it was the individual act of those persons they alone would be prosecuted and being found guilty would be punished and may also be liable to pay fine or compensation but not UOI or Railway would even vicariously liable. • 4. It is also contended that for claiming damages for the offences purpetrated on Smt. Haniffa Khatoon, the remedy lay in private law and not under public law and therefore no compensation could have been legally awarded by the HC under Article 226. • 5. At the instance of a practising lawyer who in no way, was concerned or coneected with the victim. • Whether all the ingredients of the commission of tort against the person of Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon were made out, so as to entitled to the relief of damages?
The Self-Help Guide to the Law: Contracts, Landlord-Tenant Relations, Marriage, Divorce, Personal Injury, Negligence, Constitutional Rights and Criminal Law for Non-Law: Guide for Non-Lawyers, #3
Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival Guides
Ward A. Thompson v. City of Lawrence, Kansas Ron Olin, Chief of Police Jerry Wells, District Attorney Frank Diehl, David Davis, Kevin Harmon, Mike Hall, Ray Urbanek, Jim Miller, Bob Williams, Craig Shanks, John Lewis, Jack Cross, Catherine Kelley, Dan Ward, James Haller, Dave Hubbell and Matilda Woody, Frances S. Wisdom v. City of Lawrence, Kansas Ron Olin, Chief of Police David Davis, Mike Hall, Jim Miller, Bob Williams, Craig Shanks, John L. Lewis, Jack Cross, Kevin Harmon, Catherine Kelley, Dan Ward and James Haller, Jr., 58 F.3d 1511, 10th Cir. (1995)