Law of Tort September 5, 2016
Mohammad Rubaiyat RahmanLecturer
BSMRSTUGopalganj 8100
Private WrongMens Rea Not
NecessarySuit for DamageNot CodifiedThe case is usually
started by state
Public WrongMens rea requiredThe suit is for
punishmentCodifiedCase is usually
started by the individual affected
Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Crime
A tort is a wrong committed against a particular person or property
The defendant faces civil action
Standard of proof- ‘balance of probabilities’.
A crime is a wrong committed against the public good
The defendant faces criminal charges
Standard of proof-‘beyond reasonable
doubt’.
Damage & Injury
Injury :
Something done contrary to law or right.
Injury is synonymous to wrong. Legal wrong is violation is law.It is harm or damage that is called damnum.
Damage:Damage is the loss or
harm suffered by a person in circumstances recognized as legally actionable.
It may be caused by breach of any kind of legal action.
Injuria sine damnum Injuria refers to a wrongful act for which the law provides a remedy.
It is a Tort.
Damnum sine injuria is an exception to the maxim injuria sine damnum. [] Where there is neither injury nor damage no action would lie.
Injuria sine damnum= it is a wrongful act
unaccompanied by any damage yet actionable at law.
=This maxim is an extension of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.
= it is an exception to injuria sine damnum
Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Contract
It is a violation of rights in rem
Duties are fixed by law
Question of privity is out of place here
Intention is sometimes taken into consideration
It is a violation of a right in personam
Duties arise due to voluntary agreement
Question privity is closely connected
In ‘breach of contract’ is of no relevance.
Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Contract
Tort is connected with losses.
Contract law is concerned with promises.
Asby v. White Case Brief(1703) 92 ER 126
Fact: Plaintiff was precluded from being able to exercise his right to voteIssue:whether one party may recover damages when one of
his civil rights (right to vote) is hindered by the action of another.
Decision: Plaintiff ought to be allowed to recover, because the
right to vote is a common law right and thus, an obstruction of that right should give rise to a cause of action.
Fact: Defendant lowered prices and offered incentive in an attempt to
drive Plaintiff from the market. Plaintiff sued Defendant for unfair competition.
Issue: Is there a cause of action for unfair competition when that
competition complained of consists of a price confederation that wants to control shipping of goods by lowering prices?
Held: No. “Competition, however severe and egotistical, if unattended by
circumstances of dishonesty, intimidation, molestation, or such illegalities gives rise to no cause of action at common law.”