Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Difference between Law of Torts

and Law of Contract


• Situation A:Tresspass

• Situation B:Agreement to sale property


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?

S-ar putea să vă placă și