Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T10:04:50.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - A Comparative Fault Defense in Contract Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2010

Omri Ben-Shahar
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Ariel Porat
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access

Summary

This chapter calls for the recognition of a comparative fault defense in contract law. Part I sets the framework for this defense and suggests the situations in which it should apply. These situations are sorted under two headings: cases of noncooperation and cases of overreliance. Part II unfolds the main argument for recognizing the defense and recommends applying the defense only in cases where cooperation or avoidance of overreliance is low cost.

Introduction

In the 1970s, the comparative fault defense (CFD) in tort law began to spread across the United States, about thirty years after it became prevalent in the United Kingdom. Both legislatures and courts throughout the United States adopted this defense, with the latter applying it in tort cases on a daily basis. Today, few will call for the restoration of the doctrine that preceded it: the contributory negligence defense. That defense enabled courts to either impose full liability on the injurer (when there was no contributory negligence) or leave the burden of harm completely on the victim's shoulders (when there was contributory negligence). The CFD rejects this binary approach to fault, instead allowing apportionment of damages between the injurer and the contributorily negligent victim.

Over the years, the CFD has spread into the contract law of many countries (e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel), albeit primarily in cases where a party breached a contractual duty of reasonable care or in cases of concurrent tort and contract liability.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cooter, Robert, Unity in Tort, Contract, and Property: The Model of Precaution, 73 Cal. L. Rev.1, 14–15 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craswell, Richard, Performance, Reliance, and One-sided Information, 18 J. Legal Stud.365, 367–8 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, George M., The Fault Lines in Contract Damages, 80 Va. L. Rev.1225 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×