While these cases demonstrate the basic similarities between torts law and contract law, in the area of the remoteness of damages, there are also subtle differences in this area between the torts and contracts doctrines. For instance, in contract law, if a defendant had knowledge of a special situation that plaintiff is in, then he is held to be responsible for the damages if this situation did not occur because of his negligence. An example of this is in the Victoria Laundry case - if the defendant, in that case, was aware that Victoria Laundry was attempting to secure a contract with the ministry of supply, then the defendant presumably would have been liable for the extraordinary damages that were sought to compensate Victoria Laundry for the loss of this contract. Because the defendant was not aware of this situation, he was held not to be liable. In tort law, this would presumably not be the case. For instance, in the Overseas Tankship case, the defendant was aware that there was oil beneath the dock, and they continued to spark welding material into the oil anyway. They were not held liable, despite having knowledge of plaintiff's special vulnerability. This is because it wasn't foreseeable that oil would ignite in water. Likewise, it would not have necessarily been foreseeable by the defendant in Victoria Laundry that his negligence would cause Victoria Laundry not to get the contract with the ministry of supply, yet the Victoria Laundry court implied that, if the defendant had the knowledge that Victoria Laundry was trying to get this contract, the defendant might have been held liable. Another difference between the tort and contract doctrines is that, in contract law, a higher degree of probability that the loss would occur is needed for liability than in tort law. This is because, in contracts, the parties have an opportunity to apportion the liabilities and contingencies through the contract itself, while, in torts, there is no such opportunity.
Czarnikow Ltd. v. Koufo, (1967) 3 ALL E.R. 686.
Deakin, Simon, and Johnston, Angus, and Markesinis, Basil. Tort Law 6th Edition, Oxford University Press: 2008.
Doyle v. Olby Ironmongers, (1969) 2 QB 158.
East v. Mauer, (1990) 2 ALL E.R. 737.
Hadley v. Baxendale, (1854) 9 Exch. 341.
Hedley Burne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller, (1964) AC 465.
Hooley, Richard. “Damages and Misrepresentation Act 1967,” 107 L.Q.R. 547, 1991.
Lamb v. Camden London Borough Council, (1981) QB 625.
Lunney, Mark, and Oliphant, Ken. Tort Law Text and Materials 3rd Edition, 2008.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts and Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound), (1961) UKPC 1.
Re Polemis & Furniss, Withy & Co. Ltd., (1921) 3 KB 560.
Royscott Trust Co. v. Rogerson, (1991) 3 ALL E.R. 294.
Street, John Murphy. Torts 12th Edition, Oxford University Press: 2007.
Taylor, Richard and Taylor, Damian. Contract Law 2nd Edition, 2009.
Victoria Laundry Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd., (1949) 2 KB 528.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples