Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T16:50:52.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

England and Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2019

Ken Oliphant
Affiliation:
Professor of Tort Law, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Vanessa Wilcox
Affiliation:
Secretary General of the European Law Institute, Former Assistant to the European Group on Tort Law, Austria
Get access

Summary

QUESTIONS

TRACING THE BORDERLINES

A. DISTINCTION BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT

1) Justification for Distinguishing Tort from Contract

a) Historical Distinction

The categories contract and tort are not to be found in the early common law. It was not until the end of the 17th century that they began to emerge and that the distinction between them came to have significance, initially for primarily procedural reasons. With the abolition of the old ‘forms of action’ in the mid-19th century, the question of classification had to be addressed more systematically and on the level of substance, and various theoretical analyses of the distinction between the two causes of action began to emerge.

b) Theories Justifying Continued Division

The classic justification, under the ‘will theory’, is that contractual duties are based on voluntary obligations: it is for the law to set out the prerequisites for the formation of a contract and to enforce it but it is for the parties to negotiate its substantive terms. Tortious obligations, on the other hand, are coercive: they are imposed by law and not on the basis of agreement between the parties.

In practice, however, the laissez-faire theory of contract is only true as a starting point. First, because terms may be implied into contracts by the courts or the legislature and some terms that have expressly been negotiated by the parties may be struck down. Indeed, entire agreements may be struck down on the grounds, inter alia, of illegality, incapacity, mistake, duress, misrepresentation, frustration and restraint of trade. Second, much judicial ingenuity is also expended on the interpretation of the parties’ agreement so as to avoid unjust consequences. As a result of the contra proferentem rule, for example, exemption clauses are construed strictly against the party who seeks to rely on them. Third, the classification of terms also allows courts some latitude for intervention. This is the case, for example, with ‘innominate terms’, intermediate terms that may transpire to be either conditions or warranties on the ex post application of the ‘consequences of the breach’ test.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Borderlines of Tort Law
Interactions with Contract Law
, pp. 69 - 130
Publisher: Intersentia
Print publication year: 2019

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.)

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.

  • England and Wales
    • By Ken Oliphant, Professor of Tort Law, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Vanessa Wilcox, Secretary General of the European Law Institute, Former Assistant to the European Group on Tort Law, Austria
  • Edited by Miquel Martin-Casals
  • Book: The Borderlines of Tort Law
  • Online publication: 15 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689135.006
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.

  • England and Wales
    • By Ken Oliphant, Professor of Tort Law, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Vanessa Wilcox, Secretary General of the European Law Institute, Former Assistant to the European Group on Tort Law, Austria
  • Edited by Miquel Martin-Casals
  • Book: The Borderlines of Tort Law
  • Online publication: 15 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689135.006
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.

  • England and Wales
    • By Ken Oliphant, Professor of Tort Law, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Vanessa Wilcox, Secretary General of the European Law Institute, Former Assistant to the European Group on Tort Law, Austria
  • Edited by Miquel Martin-Casals
  • Book: The Borderlines of Tort Law
  • Online publication: 15 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689135.006
Available formats
×