Contract vs tort
The classic 19th century definition of a contract is 'a promise or set of promises which the law will enforce' (Pollock, Principles of Contract 13th edition). That is to say, there is reciprocity of undertaking passing between the promisor and the promisee.
Tort, on the other hand, is generic in nature and therefore more difficult to define. It is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which have been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in such circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law.
In contract, the rights and obligations are created by the acts of agreement between the parties to the contractual arrangement.
In tort, the rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:
Historically, actions in contract and in tort derived from the same source - trespass - compared with actions for breach of a deed, which were based upon an action on the covenant. Actions for breach of contract were based on assumpsit and actions in tort were ex delicto. In the 17th century the courts began to draw procedural but not substantive distinctions between assumpsit and actions ex delicto.
These distinctions became substantive differences during the nineteenth century, reflecting the political social and economical philosophy of 'laissez-faire', which emphasised the importance of the legal doctrines of freedom of contract and sanctity of contract.
The area of tort which recently has been most exhaustively considered by the courts is negligence.
In a lecture to the Technology & Construction Bar Association and the Society of Construction Law on 30th October 2014, Lord Justice Jackson described the difference as: “The law of tort or delict requires D (defendant) to refrain from injuring C’s (claimant) person or property, alternatively to compensate C for any injury or loss caused. The law of contract requires D to fulfil his promises to C or, in default, to make compensation.” Ref https://www.scl.org.uk/sites/default/files/Concurrent%20Liability_0.pdf
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Alternative dispute resolution.
- Adjudication.
- Arbitration.
- Breach of contract.
- Causes of construction disputes.
- Construction contract.
- Contract negotiation.
- Delict.
- Derogation from grant.
- Dispute resolution boards.
- Donoghue v Stevenson.
- Mediation.
- Modifying clauses in standard forms of contract.
- Negligence.
- Procurement
- Scheme for Construction Contracts.
- Strict liability.
- Trespass.
Featured articles
Check out some of the best features and news from Designing Buildings as well as key stories from around the web.
38% of Gen Zs feel safe when a fire door is wedged open.
Stunning images from around the world
Shortlist for CIOB’s Art of Building photography competition.
Guidance for conversion of traditional pre-1919 stone buildings.
Industrial heritage in the Ruhr
A marked difference to the fate of industrial landscapes in the UK.
Communities will be able to build their own clean energy.
Why diversity and inclusion matters for SMEs
CIOB’s D&I Charter shows how practical changes can support long-term growth.
Cut electricity bills to power growth
Coalition sends joint letter to the Chancellor.
Gasholders: a history in pictures. Book review.
Recognition, influence and growth
SocEnv identifies three strategic pillars in new strategy to 2045.
Discover the future of roofing, cladding and insulation.
New guidance for professional practice, cultural change and regulation in social housing.
The heritage of nuclear and conventional power stations.

















