Rights, Remedies, and Normal Expectancies in Tort and Contract

(1997) 113 Law Quarterly Review 426-432

8 Pages Posted: 27 Nov 2015

See all articles by Stephen Smith

Stephen Smith

McGill University - Faculty of Law (deceased)

Date Written: Feb 25, 1997

Abstract

In this short essay, I criticize Professor Jane Stapleton’s argument (defended in her article ‘The Normal Expectancies Measure in Tort Damages’ (1997) 113 LQR 257) that “[c]lassifying compensatory damages into different measures of damages is a useful analytical device in the study of the law of obligations”(257). Specifically, I query her view that: (i) the measures of damages awarded in tort and contract should be distinguished on the basis of the differing financial destinations to which the plaintiff is re-positioned, and (ii) once this is done it is clear that, contrary to the orthodox view, holding defendants liable in tort for failing, through their carelessness, to improve the plaintiff’s position is consistent with the ordinary principles of tort law.

Keywords: remedies, tort, contract, damages, private law theory

JEL Classification: K10, K12, K13, K40

Suggested Citation

Smith, Stephen, Rights, Remedies, and Normal Expectancies in Tort and Contract (Feb 25, 1997). (1997) 113 Law Quarterly Review 426-432, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2695502

Stephen Smith (Contact Author)

McGill University - Faculty of Law (deceased)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
133
Abstract Views
670
Rank
388,166
PlumX Metrics