A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations.

The remedy at law for breach of

contract is "damages" or monetary compensation. In equity, the remedy can be specific performance of the contract or an injunction.
Both remedies award the damaged party the "benefit of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance
damages, as in

An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal.
4. Games
a. The last and highest bid of a suit in one hand in bridge.
b. The number of tricks thus bid.
c. Contract bridge.
5. A paid assignment to murder someone: put out a contract on the mobster's life.

v. (k n-tr kt , k n tr kt ) con·tract·ed, con·tract·ing, con·tracts

v.tr.
1. To enter into by contract; establish or settle by formal agreement: contract a marriage.
2. To acquire or incur: contract obligations; contract a serious illness.
3.
a. To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink.
b. To pull together; wrinkle.
4. Grammar To shorten (a word or words) by omitting or combining some of the letters or sounds, as do not to don't.
v.intr.
1. To enter into or make an agreement: contract for garbage collection.
2. To become reduced in size by or as if by being drawn together: The pupils of the patient's eyes contracted.
Phrasal Verb:
contract out
To engage a person outside an organization by contract to undertake or produce.

[Middle English, from Latin contractus, past participle of contrahere, to draw together, make a contract : com-, com- +
trahere, to draw.]

Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, which is usually translated "agreements
to be kept" but more literally means "pacts must be kept".[1]

Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations, along with tort, unjust
enrichment, and restitution.

As a means of economic ordering, contract relies on the notion of consensual exchange and has been extensively discussed in
broader economic, sociological, and anthropological terms (see "Contractual theory" below). In American English, the term extends
beyond the legal meaning to encompass a broader category of agreements.[2]

This article mainly concerns the common law. Such jurisdictions usually retain a high degree of freedom of contract, with parties
largely at liberty to set their own terms. This is in contrast to the civil law, which typically applies certain overarching principles to
disputes arising out of contract, as in the French Civil Code.

However, contract is a form of economic ordering common throughout the world, and different rules apply in jurisdictions applying
civil law (derived from Roman law principles), Islamic law, socialist legal systems, and customary or local law.

Elements

At common law, the elements of a contract are mutual assent and consideration.

Mutual assent

At common law, mutual assent is typically reached through offer and acceptance, that is, when an offer is met with an acceptance
that is unqualified and that does not vary the offer's terms. The latter requirement is known as the "mirror image" rule. If a purported
acceptance does vary the terms of an offer, it is not an acceptance but a counteroffer and, therefore, simultaneously a rejection of
the original offer. The UCC notably disposes of the mirror image rule in § 2-207, although the UCC only governs transactions in
goods.

Offer and acceptance

Main article: Offer and acceptance

The most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for an arrangement that another accepts. This can be
called a concurrence of wills or consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds) of two or more parties. The concept is somewhat
contested. The obvious objection is that a court cannot read minds and the existence or otherwise of agreement is judged
objectively, with only limited room for questioning subjective intention: see Smith v. Hughes.[3] Richard Austen-Baker has suggested
that the perpetuation of the idea of 'meeting of minds' may come from a misunderstanding of the Latin term 'consensus ad idem',
which actually means 'agreement to the [same] thing'.[4] There must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective
perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a
requirement.[5] An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting
contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person, not that they actually did want to form a contract.

Contract theory

Main article: Contract theory

Contract theory is the body of legal theory that addresses normative and conceptual questions in contract law. One of the most
important questions asked in contract theory is why contracts are enforced. One prominent answer to this question focuses on the
economic benefits of enforcing bargains. Another approach, associated with Charles Fried, maintains that the purpose of contract
law is to enforce promises. This theory is developed in Fried's book, Contract as Promise. Other approaches to contract theory are
found in the writings of legal realists and critical legal studies theorists.

More generally, writers have propounded Marxist and feminist interpretations of contract. Attempts at overarching understandings of
the purpose and nature of contract as a phenomenon have been made, notably 'relational contract theory' originally developed by
U.S. contracts scholars Ian Roderick Macneil and Stewart Macaulay, building at least in part on the contract theory work of U.S.
scholar Lon L. Fuller, while U.S. scholars have been at the forefront of developing economic theories of contract focussing on
questions of transaction cost and so-called 'efficient breach' theory.

Another dimension of the theoretical debate in contract is its place within, and relationship to a wider law of obligations. Obligations
have traditionally been divided into contracts, which are voluntarily undertaken and owed to a specific person or persons, and
obligations in tort which are based on the wrongful infliction of harm to certain protected interests, primarily imposed by the law, and
typically owed to a wider class of persons.

Recently it has been accepted that there is a third category, restitutionary obligations, based on the unjust enrichment of the
defendant at the plaintiff's expense. Contractual liability, reflecting the constitutive function of contract, is generally for failing to make
things better (by not rendering the expected performance), liability in tort is generally for action (as opposed to omission) making
things worse, and liability in restitution is for unjustly taking or retaining the benefit of the plaintiff's money or work.[58]

The common law describes the circumstances under which the law will recognise the existence of rights, privilege or power arising
out of a promise.

Affirmative defences

Vitiating factors constituting defences to purported contract formation include:

• mistake;
• incapacity, including mental incompetence and infancy/minority;
• duress;
• undue influence;
• unconscionability;
• misrepresentation/fraud; and
• frustration of purpose.

Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified
by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.
body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered
harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct
is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the
defendant or tortfeasor.

Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty
to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his
or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.

The law of torts is derived from a combination of common-law principles and legislative enactments. Unlike actions for breach of
contract, tort actions are not dependent upon an agreement between the parties to a lawsuit. Unlike criminal prosecutions, which are
brought by the government, tort actions are brought by private citizens. Remedies for tortious acts include money damages and
injunctions (court orders compelling or forbidding particular conduct). Tortfeasors are subject to neither fine nor incarceration in civil
court.

The word tort comes from the Latin term torquere, which means "twisted or wrong." The English Common Law recognized no
separate legal action in tort. Instead, the British legal system afforded litigants two central avenues of redress: Trespass for direct
injuries, and actions "on the case" for indirect injuries. Gradually, the common law recognized other civil actions, including
Defamation, LIBEL, and slander. Most of the American colonies adopted the English common law in the eighteenth century. During
the nineteenth century, the first U.S. legal treatises were published in which a portion of the common law was synthesized under the
heading of torts.

Over the last century, tort law has touched on nearly every aspect of life in the United States. In economic affairs, tort law provides
remedies for businesses that are harmed by the unfair and deceptive trade practices of a competitor. In the workplace, tort law
protects employees from the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Tort law also helps regulate the environment,
providing remedies against both individuals and businesses that pollute the air, land, and water to such an extent that it amounts to
a Nuisance.

Sometimes tort law governs life's most intimate relations, as when individuals are held liable for knowingly transmitting
communicable diseases to their sexual partners. When a loved one is killed by a tortious act, surviving family members may bring a
Wrongful Death action to recover pecuniary loss. Tort law also governs a wide array of behavior in less intimate settings, including
the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways.

The law of torts serves four objectives. First, it seeks to compensate victims for injuries suffered by the culpable action or inaction of
others. Second, it seeks to shift the cost of such injuries to the person or persons who are legally responsible for inflicting them.
Third, it seeks to discourage injurious, careless, and risky behavior in the future. Fourth, it seeks to vindicate legal rights and
interests that have been compromised, diminished, or emasculated. In theory these objectives are served when tort liability is
imposed on tortfeasors for intentional wrongdoing, Negligence, and ultrahazardous activities.

Intentional Torts

An intentional tort is any deliberate interference with a legally recognized interest, such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional
tranquility, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception. These interests are
violated by the intentional torts of assault, Battery, trespass, False Imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, Misrepresentation,
and Fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful
consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and
wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.

Under certain circumstances the law permits individuals to intentionally pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily result in
harm to others. The harm that results from such conduct is said to be outweighed by more important interests. Self-preservation is
one such interest and is embodied in the right of Self-Defense. Individuals may exert sufficient force in self-defense

Breast Implant Lawsuits

When a company produces a dangerous or defective product that injures an individual, the injured person may sue the company in
a products-liability tort action, demanding compensation for the injuries. To prevail in a products-liability action, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the injury-causing product was defective, that the defect existed at the time the product left the control of the
defendant, and that such defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. If many individuals have been injured by the same
product, the court may permit the filing of a Class Action lawsuit, in which a small number of plaintiffs represent the entire group of
injured victims.

One of the more controversial class actions involved the silicone breast-implant litigation. Notwithstanding a class totaling more than
400,000 plaintiffs, a settlement that offered more than $3 billion in compensation for their alleged injuries, and a federal government
ban on the product, no evidence was ever provided that conclusively linked silicone breast implants with any form of serious
disease. In fact, following the settlement at least two scientific studies affirmatively concluded that no such link exists. Inthe wake of
those studies, manufacturers have sought government approval to resume selling silicone breast implants to the public.

In 1962 Dow Corning became the first company to manufacture and market silicone breast implants. The implants consisted of a
rubbery silicone envelope containing silicone gel. Plastic surgeons soon discovered that a certain (and as yet undetermined)
percentage of implants rupture on their own, either because of trauma to the breast or because the implant simply tears. In many
cases, the gel stays either in the implants or in the immediate vicinity. In rare cases, the gel may migrate through the body.
Moreover, the implants themselves are permeable, and minute amounts of silicone gel can seep through the implants and remain in
nearby tissue or migrate throughout the body.

For many years, breast implants were essentially unregulated by the government. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not
have jurisdiction over medical devices, including breast implants, until the 1976 Medical Devices Amendment to the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (MDA) became law. The MDA "grandfathered-in" existing devices, such as breast implants, allowing them to remain
on the market until the FDA could classify and regulate them. In 1982 the FDA proposed classifying silicone-gel breast implants as
Class III devices, the most stringently regulated category. The FDA expressed concern about the scar tissue that forms around the
implant, about potential long-term toxic effects of silicone that might leak from the implants, and about possible health effects from
the silicone polymers from which the implant shells were made.

That same year Maria Stern filed the first silicone-breast-implant-related Product Liability suit against Dow Corning, Inc., after her
implants ruptured. Testifying before a jury sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Stern said that she
suffered from chronic fatigue and joint pains before and after the implants were removed. Although her doctors speculated that
Stern's problems had been caused by the silicone migrating throughout her body, they offered no valid scientific proof of causation.
However, Stern did demonstrate that the company had acted irresponsibly by failing to conduct any research into the possible ill
effects of silicone on the human body despite evidence that Dow Corning knew that implants could leak and rupture. A jury found for
the plaintiff and awarded Stern $200,000 in damages. The jury also awarded her $1.2 million in Punitive Damages. After the trial
judge upheld the awards, the case was settled before appeal for an undisclosed sum, and the record was sealed.

The media did not immediately pick up on the Stern settlement or the smattering of similar lawsuits that were pending in state and
federal courts around the country. After several relatively uneventful years following a series FDA hearings in the late 1980s,
however, NBC aired an episode of Face to Face with Connie Chung which focused on the dangers of breast implants. The
December 1990 show frightened and outraged thousands of implant recipients. Chung referred to silicone gel as "an ooze of slimy
gelatin that could be poisoning women." She interviewed several women who blamed implants for causing their auto-immune
diseases, but Chung never questioned the presumed link. Chung concluded the segment by showing viewers pictures of Sybil
Goldrich, whose chest had been disfigured by operations to remove her implants.

On July 9, 1991, a deadline expired for implant manufacturers to prove the safety of their product to the FDA, and no manufacturer
offered any convincing proof on the matter. A year later the FDA ordered that silicone breast implants be removed from the market.
Thereafter, the number of breast-implant lawsuits filed against manufacturers rose dramatically. By 1992 plaintiffs had filed 3,558
individual lawsuits against Dow Corning alone. In June 1992, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation certified a multi-
district class-action lawsuit against the major implant manufacturers, including Dow Corning, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter
International, and Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

In September 1993 the parties tentatively agreed to settle the class-action products liability lawsuit for $4.75 billion. But settlement
ultimately collapsed after 440,000 women registered for the settlement, forcing Dow Corning, the largest contributor to the
settlement, to file for Bankruptcy in 1995. On November 30, 1998, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Spector approved Dow Corning's
$4.5 billion plan to emerge from bankruptcy, which included $3.2 billion to settle implant claims with more than 170,000 women.
Eventually, the other implant manufacturers entered similar settlement agreements with most of the remaining plaintiffs. More than
90 percent of the eligible class-action plaintiffs accepted the defendants' settlement offers. The remaining plaintiffs opted-out of the
class settlement, which allowed them to sue the defendants individually.

A little more than a year after the class action was settled, a scientific panel appointed by the court overseeing the settlement
released the results of its breast-implant study, finding that there was no sufficient scientific basis to link silicone implants to cancer,
connective tissue diseases, immune system dysfunctions, or any other disease. On June 21, 1999, the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences issued a congressionally funded report that reached the same conclusion.

In March of 2003 two California-based companies announced their desire to re-introduce silicone breast implants into the stream of
commerce, and the FDA agreed to hold safety hearings and reconsider its ban on the product. The potential return of silicone gel-
filled implants came at a time when more women were looking to increase their breast size: the American Society of Plastic
Surgeons reported more than 206,300 breast augmentations in 2001, up from about 32,600 in 1992.

Further readings

Angell, Marcia. 1997. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Crane, Misti. 2003. "FDA Might Reconsider 10-Year Silicone Ban." Columbus Dispatch (March 16).

Stewart, Mary White. 1998. Silicone Spills: Breast Implants on Trial. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Cross-references

Class Action.

to repel an imminent threat of bodily harm. Deadly Force may only be used by persons who reasonably believe that their lives are
endangered and for whom there are no reasonable means of escape. Reasonable force, but not deadly force, may be employed in
defense of property.

Consent is a defense to virtually every intentional tort. The law will not compensate persons who knowingly allow someone to injure
them. However, consent must be given freely and voluntarily to be effective. Consent induced by coercion, duress, Undue Influence,
or chicanery is not legally effective. Nor is consent legally effective when given by an incompetent person. Consent to intentional
torts involving grievous bodily harm is also deemed ineffective in a number of jurisdictions.

Negligence

Most injuries that result from tortious behavior are the product of negligence, not intentional wrongdoing. Negligence is the term
used by tort law to characterize behavior that creates unreasonable risks of harm to persons and property. A person acts negligently
when his behavior departs from the conduct ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. In
general, the law requires jurors to use their common sense and life experience in determining the proper degree of care and
vigilance with which people must lead their lives to avoid imperiling the safety of others.

Not every accident producing injury gives rise to liability for negligence. Some accidents cannot be avoided even with the exercise of
reasonable care. An accident that results from a defendant's sudden and unexpected physical ailment, such as a seizure or a
blackout, generally relieves the defendant of liability for harm caused during his period of unconsciousness. However, defendants
who have reason to know of such medical problems are expected to take reasonable precautions against the risks the problems
create. In some jurisdictions unavoidable accidents are called ACTS OF GOD.

Assumption of Risk is another defense to negligence actions. This defense prevents plaintiffs from recovering for injuries sustained
as a result of a relationship or transaction they entered with full knowledge and acceptance of the risks commonly associated with
such undertakings. Assumed risks include most of those encountered by spectators attending sporting events. However, the law will
not assume that individuals accept the risk of intentionally inflicted harm or damage, such as injuries resulting from Assault and
Battery.

Strict Liability

In some cases tort law imposes liability on defendants who are neither negligent nor guilty of intentional wrongdoing. Known as
Strict Liability, or liability without fault, this branch of torts seeks to regulate those activities that are useful and necessary but that
create abnormally dangerous risks to society. These activities include blasting, transporting hazardous materials, storing dangerous
substances, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity.

A distinction is sometimes drawn between moral fault and legal fault. Persons who negligently or intentionally cause injury to others
are often considered morally blameworthy for having failed to live up to a minimal threshold of human conduct. On the other hand,
legal fault is more of an artificial standard of conduct that is created by government for the protection of society.

Persons who engage in ultrahazardous activities may be morally blameless because no amount of care or diligence can make their
activities safe for society. However, such persons will nonetheless be held legally responsible for harm that results from their
activities as a means of shifting the costs of injury from potential victims to tortfeasors. As a matter of social policy, then, individuals
and entities that engage in abnormally dangerous activities for profit must be willing to ensure the safety of others as a price of doing
business.

Consumers who have been injured by defectively manufactured products also rely on strict liability. Under the doctrine of strict
Product Liability, a manufacturer must guarantee that its goods are suitable for their intended use when they are placed on the
market for public consumption. The law of torts will hold manufacturers strictly liable for any injuries that result from placing
unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, without regard to the amount of care exercised in preparing the
product for sale and distribution and without regard to whether the consumer purchased the product from, or entered into a
contractual relationship with, the manufacturer.

Causation
Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. Causation has two
prongs. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in
injury to another. In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a
necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury. Courts analyze this issue by determining whether the plaintiff's injury would have
occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. If an injury would have occurred independent of the defendant's conduct, cause in fact
has not been established, and no tort has been committed. When multiple factors have led to a particular injury, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the tortfeasor's action played a substantial role in causing the injury.

Second, plaintiffs must establish that a particular tort was the proximate cause of an injury before liability will be imposed. The term
proximate cause is somewhat misleading because it has little to do with proximity or causation. Proximate cause limits the scope of
liability to those injuries that bear some reasonable relationship to the risk created by the defendant. Proximate cause is evaluated in
terms of foresee-ability. If the defendant should have foreseen the tortious injury, he or she will be held liable for the resulting loss. If
a given risk could not have been reasonably anticipated, proximate cause has not been established, and liability will not be imposed.

When duty, breach, and proximate cause have been established in a tort action, the plaintiff may recover damages for the pecuniary
losses sustained. The measure of damages is determined by the nature of the tort committed and the type of injury suffered.
Damages for tortious acts generally fall into one of four categories: damages for injury to person, damages for injury to Personal
Property, damages for injury to real property, and Punitive Damages.

Damages

Personal injury tort victims must normally recover all their damages—past, present, and future—during a single lawsuit. Damages
may be recovered for physical, psychological, and emotional injury. Specifically, these injuries may include permanent disability,
pain and suffering, disfigurement, humiliation, embarrassment, distress, impairment of earning capacity, lost wages or profits,
medical costs, and out-of-pocket expenses. Courts typically rely on Expert Testimony to translate such losses into dollar figures.

Plaintiffs suffering damage to personal property must elect between two methods of recovery. First, plaintiffs may elect to recover
the difference between the value of the property before the tort and the value of the property after it. Second, plaintiffs may elect to
recover the reasonable costs of repair for damaged personal property. However, if the property is destroyed, irreparable, or
economically infeasible to repair, damages are measured by the replacement value of the property. Persons who are temporarily
deprived of personalty may sue to recover the rental value of the property for the period of deprivation.

Damages for injury to real property may be measured by the difference in the realty's value before and after the tort. Alternatively,
plaintiffs may elect to recover the reasonable costs of restoring the property to its original condition. In either case plaintiffs may also
recover the rental value of their property if its use and enjoyment has been interrupted by tortious behavior. Mental, emotional, and
physical harm that is sustained in the process of a tortious injury to real property is compensable as well.

Punitive damages, called exemplary damages in some jurisdictions, are recoverable against tortfeasors whose injurious conduct is
sufficiently egregious. Although punitive damages are typically awarded for injuries suffered from intentional torts, they can also be
awarded against tortfeasors who act with reckless indifference to the safety of others. Because one purpose of punitive damages is
to punish the defendant, plaintiffs may introduce evidence regarding a tortfeasor's wealth to allow the jury to better assess the
amount of damages necessary for punishment. Such evidence is normally deemed irrelevant or prejudicial in almost every other
type of damage claim.

In addition to damages for past tortious conduct, plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief to prevent future harm. Manufacturing plants
that billow smoke that pollutes the air, companies that discharge chemicals that poison the water, and factories that store chemicals
that migrate through the soil create risks of injury that are likely to recur over time. In tort law, operations that produce recurring
injuries like these are called nuisances. If the harmfulness of such operations outweighs their usefulness, plaintiffs may successfully
obtain a court order enjoining or restraining them.

Immunity

Certain individuals and entities are granted Immunity from both damage awards and assessments of liability in tort. An immunity is a
defense to a legal action where public policy demands special protection for an entity or a class of persons participating in a
particular field or activity. Historically, immunity from tort litigation has been granted to government units, public officials, charities,
educational institutions, spouses, parents, and children.

Government immunity, also known as Sovereign Immunity, insulates federal, state, and local governments from liability for torts that
an employee commits within the scope of his or her official duties. Public policy, as reflected by legislation, common-law precedent,
and popular opinion, has required courts to protect the government from unnecessary disruptions that invariably result from civil
litigation. Similarly, educational institutions generally have been immunized from tort actions to protect students and faculty from
distraction.
In a number of states, tortfeasors have been given immunity from liability if they are related to the victim as husband or wife, or
parent or child. These states concluded that family harmony should not be traumatized by the adversarial nature of tort litigation.
Charities and other philanthropic organizations have been given qualified immunity from tort liability as well. This immunity is based
on the fear that donors would stop giving money to charities if the funds were used to pay tort claims.

Over the last quarter century, nearly every jurisdiction has curtailed tort immunity in some fashion. Several jurisdictions have
abolished tort immunity for entire groups and entities. The movement to restrict tort immunity has been based in part on the Rule of
Law, which requires all persons, organizations, and government officials to be treated equally under the law. Despite the efforts of
this movement, tort immunity persists in various forms at the federal, state, and local levels.

Tort Reform Initiatives

The damages recovered by those injured as a result of a tortious act of another are often paid for by insurance companies. This is
particularly true in Medical Malpractice cases. Doctors must pay significant medical liability insurance premiums in order to stay in
business. When a doctor commits Malpractice, the patient may receive an award of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of
dollars. As insurance companies continue to pay these hefty awards, the rates for insurance premiums often rise sharply.

The medical profession and medical liability insurance companies have engaged in a nationwide campaign to place limitations on
the amount of damages that a patient who has been subject to medical malpractice can recover. Under the guise of "tort reform,"
supporters advocate placing limitations on the recovery of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of
consortium. In 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which limits recovery of noneconomic
damages at $250,000 and restricts the amount of fees that may be recovered by lawyers. California's law has served as a model for
six other states that have adopted similar tort-reform bills. Other state legislatures have considered similar tort-reform initiatives.

President GEORGE W. BUSH has advocated federal legislation that would place a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages at the
national level. According to Bush, the federal government spends $28 billion per year on medical liability insurance costs and
defensive medical costs. Opponents of such a measure claim that many of the problems associated with insurance costs are the
result of poor business practices by insurance companies. Opponents also maintain that capping damages for pain and suffering
restricts the ability of patients to recover only an Arbitrary amount from a negligent doctor. Supporters of the initiative claim that
capping damages will lower medical costs to the general population.

English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are
the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court - in a criminal case. A tort is not enforced
by the police, and it is a civil action taken by one citizen against another, and tried in a court in front of a judge (only rarely, in certain
cases of defamation, with a jury). Tort derives from middle English for "injury", from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from
Latin, neuter of tortus "twisted", from past participle of torquēre.

Negligence is a tort which targets a breach of duty by one person to another. The famous landmark case of Donoghue v
Stevenson[2], in which Mrs Donoghue, the claimant, consumed part of a drink containing a decomposed snail while in a public house
in Paisley, Scotland. The snail was not visible, as the bottle of ginger beer in which it was contained was opaque. Neither her friend,
who bought it for her, nor the shopkeeper who sold it were aware of its presence. Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson
for her consequent illness, using negligence as, not having purchased the drink herself, the little consumer protection legislation
available in 1932 was inapplicable. The members of the House of Lords agreed that Mrs. Donoghue had a valid claim, but disagreed
as to why such a claim should exist. Lord MacMillan, as above, thought this should be treated as a new product liability case. Lord
Atkin argued that the law should recognise a unifying principle that we owe a duty of reasonable care to our neighbour. He quoted
the Bible in support of his argument, specifically the general, biblical principle that "love thy neighbour."

"The liability for negligence… is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must
pay… The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question,
Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."[3]

Thus, in the world of law, he created the doctrine that we should not harm our neighbours. The elements of negligence are:

1. A duty of care (see Donoghue v Stevenson)

2. Breach of that duty (see Nettleship v Weston)
3. Breach causing harm in fact (see Smith v Leech Brain & Co.)
4. The harm must be not too remote a consequence of the breach (see The Wagon Mound (No 2))
Duty of care
Main article: Duty of care in English law

The establishment of a duty of care is, like negligence itself, broken up into further elements, a three step test (or in some cases
more). Donoghue v Stevenson laid the groundwork for subsequent developments, and from the words of Lord Atkin's speech, he
can be seen to refer to firstly, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; secondly, the claimant and the defendant being in a
relationship of proximity; and thirdly, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant for his
careless actions. This three step scheme however, did not crystallise until the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman.[4] In this
somewhat complicated case, a company called Caparo took over another company, by buying up a majority of its shares. It did this
because it sneakily obtained word from a company audit that the target was financially sound. The audit was prepared by a group of
accountants (Dickman) and was intended for shareholders, not outsiders. Once Caparo owned the company it found that the
finances were in fact pretty shoddy, and so it sued the accountants for being negligent in its audit preparation. The House of Lords
found against Caparo, and established the current three-fold test. Although it was "reasonably foreseeable" that outsiders might
learn of the carelessly prepared information, it was not the case that Caparo and Dickman were in a relationship of "proximity". This
the court used as a term of art (note, this is different from the American use of the word), to say that it should not be the case that
absolutely anyone hearing something said that was stupid and acted on it can sue. The court was reacting to its concern that to
allow a claim here might open the floodgates of litigation. The third element, whether liability would be "fair, just and reasonable"
was an extra hurdle added, as a catch all discretionary measure for the judiciary to block further claims.

Breach of duty
Main article: Breach of duty in English law

Once a duty of care has been established, it must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether
the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of a "reasonable man" (the objective test).[5] In some cases where
the defendant was in a special profession, e.g. being a doctor, the court will ask what standard of care a "reasonable doctor" or the
like might have done.[6] Allowance is usually made for the defendants age and a lower standard of a "reasonable child of a certain
age" is applied to children.[7] On the other hand, no allowance is made for other personal circumstances, such as the fact that the
defendant was inexperienced in the task he set out to perform. He is expected to perform this task as a reasonably skilled and
competent person.[8]

Causation
Main articles: Causation in English law and Loss of chance in English law

Causation is complex, and is usually discussed in two parts. Simple causation is a question of whether "but for" the action by the
defendant harm would have resulted. There has been some deal of discussion

Product liability
Main article: Product liability

In consumer protection, with the Product Liability Directive in the European Union, where businesses making defective products that
harm people must pay for any damage resulting. Liability for defective products is strict (see strict liability) in most jurisdictions. The
theory of risk spreading provides support for this approach. Since manufacturers are the 'cheapest cost avoiders', because they
have a greater chance to seek out problems, it makes sense to give them the incentive to guard against product defects.

Occupiers' Liability
Main article: Occupiers' Liability (English law)

Occupiers' Liability is another example. Governed by the Occupier's Liability Acts, 1956 and 1984 whereby an occupier, such as a
shop owner, who invites others onto land, or has trespassers, owes a minimum duty of care for people's safety. One early case was
Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909] AC 229, in which Lord Macnaughton felt that children who were hurt
whilst looking for berries on a building site, should have some compensation for their unfortunate curiosity.

• Roles v Nathan
• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Other statutory torts

Other statutory torts can be found in regulation concerning food safety, health and safety and environmental law. For example,
liability under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or liability imposed on utility (gas and electricity)
companies to ensure the safety of their products, all of which are strict liability[11].
Nuisance

Main articles: Nuisance in English law and Rylands v Fletcher

The tort of nuisance allows a claimant (formerly plaintiff) to sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land.
A good example of this is in the case of Jones v Powell (1629).[12] A brewery made stinking vapors waft to neighbors' property,
damaging his papers. Because he was a landowner, the neighbor sued in nuisance for this damage. But Whitelocke J, speaking for
the Court of the King's Bench, said that because the water supply was contaminated, it was better that the neighbor's documents
were risked. He said "it is better that they should be spoiled than that the common wealth stand in need of good liquor." Nowadays,
interfering with neighbors' property is not looked upon so kindly. Nuisance deals with all kinds of things that spoil a landowner's
enjoyment of his property.

Rylands v Fletcher

A subset of nuisance is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher[13] where a dam burst into a coal mine shaft. So a dangerous escape
of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals means strict liability in nuisance. This is subject only to a remoteness cap, familiar
from negligence when the event is unusual and unpredictable. This was the case where chemicals from a factory seeped through a
floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's

Defamation means tarnishing the reputation of someone. It is divided into two parts, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation
and libel is defaming somebody through print (or broadcasting). Both share the same features. To defame someone, you must (a)
make a factual assertion (b) for which you cannot provide evidence of its truth. Defamation does not affect the voicing of opinions,
but comes into the same fields as rights to free speech in the European Convention's Article 10

Vicarious liability

Main article: Vicarious liability in English law

See also: Vicarious liability

"If a slave man or woman damages any piece of someone else's

property, then provided the person who suffers the loss was not
himself partly to blame because of inexperience or careless
conduct, the slave's owner must either make good the damage
in full, or hand over the actual offender."

Plato, The Laws, Book 11, §25, Damage by slaves.

Vicarious liability refers to the idea of an employer being liable for torts committed by their employees, generally for policy reasons,
and to ensure that victims have a means of recovery.[26] The word "vicarious" derives from the Latin for 'change' or 'alternation'[27] and
the old Latin for the doctrine is respondeat superior. To establish vicarious liability, the courts must find first that there exists a
relationship of employee and employer. The torts of independent contractors generally do not impose vicarious liability on
employers; however, Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd demonstrates this principle does not apply where particularly
hazardous activities are contracted for, or a non-delegable duty is owed. Secondly, the tort must have been committed 'in the course
of employment'; or while an employee is going about the business of their employer. A preferred test of the courts for connecting
torts to the course of employment was formulated by John William Salmond, which states that an employer will be held liable for
either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.[28] Where in Limpus
v London General Omnibus Company an omnibus driver chose to disobey strict instructions from his employer, to obstruct a rival
company, they were still liable, as he was merely engaging in his duties in an unauthorised way. However, in the contrasting case of
Beard v London General Omnibus Company, there was no liability where a conductor drove an omnibus negligently, as it was no
part of his duties. Under the test, employers were generally not held liable for intentional torts of their employees. Lister v Hesley
Hall Ltd established a newer test, stating that employers would be liable for torts which were closely connected to the duties of an
employee.

Tort and criminal law

There is some overlap between crime and tort, since tort, a private action, used to be used more than criminal laws in centuries
gone. For example, an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim,
to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment of damages to a person injured in a car accident, or
the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not
to obtain remedies to assist a person — although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies — but to remove their
liberty on the state's behalf. That explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for
torts.
liability n. one of the most significant words in the field of law, liability means legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions. Failure
of a person or entity to meet that responsibility leaves him/her/it open to a lawsuit for any resulting damages or a court order to
perform (as in a breach of contract or violation of statute). In order to win a lawsuit the suing party (plaintiff) must prove the legal
liability of the defendant if the plaintiff's allegations are shown to be true. This requires evidence of the duty to act, the failure to fulfill
that duty, and the connection (proximate cause) of that failure to some injury or harm to the plaintiff. Liability also applies to alleged
criminal acts in which the defendant may be responsible for his/her acts which constitute a crime, thus making him/her subject to
conviction and punishment. Example: Jack Jumpstart runs a stop sign in his car and hits Sarah Stepforth as she is crossing in the
cross-walk. Jack has a duty of care to Sarah (and the public) which he breaches by his negligence, and therefore has liability for
Sarah's injuries, and gives her the right to bring a lawsuit against him. However, Jack's father owns the automobile and he, too, may
have liability to Sarah based on a statute which makes a car owner liable for any damages caused by the vehicle he owns. The
father's responsibility is based on "statutory liability" even though he personally breached no duty. A signer of promissory note has
liability for money due if it is not paid, and so would a co-signer who guarantees it. A contractor who has agreed to complete a
building has liability to the owner if he fails to complete on time. (See: negligence, contract, joint liability

a civil wrong, or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence
cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract,
real property and criminal law), and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes
such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft), and trespass on property and form the basis for
a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another, either by print
or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander), is a tort and used to be a crime as well. (See: negligence, damages, assault, battery, fraud,
wrongful death, conversion, trespass, defamation, libel, slander)

A body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it threatens and harms public safety and
welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed for the commission of such acts.

Criminal law

The term criminal law generally refers to substantive criminal laws. Substantive criminal laws define crimes and may establish
punishments. In contrast, Criminal Procedure describes the process through which the criminal laws are enforced. For example, the
law prohibiting murder is a substantive criminal law. The manner in which government enforces this substantive law—through the
gathering of evidence and prosecution—is generally considered a procedural matter.

Crimes are usually categorized as felonies or misdemeanors based on their nature and the maximum punishment that can be
imposed. A felony involves serious misconduct that is punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year. Most state
criminal laws subdivide felonies into different classes with varying degrees of punishment. Crimes that do not amount to felonies are
misdemeanors or violations. A misdemeanor is misconduct for which the law prescribes punishment of no more than one year in
prison. Lesser offenses, such as traffic and parking infractions, are often called violations and are considered a part of criminal law.

The power to make certain conduct illegal is granted to Congress by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution
(art. I, § 8, cl. 18). Congress has the power to define and punish crimes whenever it is necessary and proper to do so, in order to
accomplish and safeguard the goals of government and of society in general. Congress has wide discretion in classifying crimes as
felonies or misdemeanors, and it may revise the classification of crimes.

State legislatures have the exclusive and inherent power to pass a law prohibiting and punishing any act, provided that the law does
not contravene the provisions of the U.S. or state constitution. When classifying conduct as criminal, state legislatures must ensure
that the classification bears some reasonable relation to the welfare and safety of society. Municipalities may make designated
behavior illegal insofar as the power to do so has been delegated to them by the state legislature.

Laws passed by Congress or a state must define crimes with certainty. A citizen and the courts must have a clear understanding of
a criminal law's requirements and prohibitions. The elements of a criminal law must be stated explicitly, and the statute must
embody some reasonably discoverable standards of guilt. If the language of a statute does not plainly show what the legislature
intended to prohibit and punish, the statute may be declared VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

In deciding whether a statute is sufficiently certain and plain, the court must evaluate it from the standpoint of a person of ordinary
intelligence who might be subject to its terms. A statute that fails to give such a person fair notice that the particular conduct is
forbidden is indefinite and therefore void. Courts will not hold a person criminally responsible for conduct that could not reasonably
be understood to be illegal. However, mere difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words used, or the Ambiguity of certain
language, will not nullify a statute for vagueness.

A criminal statute does not lapse by failure of authorities to prosecute violations of it. If a statute is expressly repealed by the
legislature, but some of its provisions are at the same time re-enacted, the re-enacted provisions continue in force without
interruption. If a penal statute is repealed without a saving clause, which would provide that the statute continues in effect for crimes
that were committed prior to its repeal, violations committed prior to its repeal cannot be prosecuted or punished after its repeal.

The same principles govern pending criminal proceedings. The punishment that is provided under a repealed statute without a
saving clause cannot be enforced, nor can the proceeding be prosecuted further, even if the accused pleads guilty. A court cannot
inflict punishment under a statute that no longer exists. If a relevant statute is repealed while an appeal of a conviction is pending,
the conviction must be set aside if there is no saving clause. However, once a final judgment of conviction is handed down on
appeal, a subsequent repeal of the statute upon which the conviction is based does not require reversal of the judgment.

Generally, two elements are required in order to find a person guilty of a crime: an overt criminal act and criminal intent. The
requirement of an Overt Act is fulfilled when the defendant purposely, knowingly, or recklessly does something prohibited by law. An
act is purposeful when a person holds a conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or to cause a particular result. To act
knowingly means to do so voluntarily and deliberately, and not owing to mistake or some other innocent reason. An act is reckless
when a person knows of an unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it.

An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act. For example, a parent has a duty to protect his or
her child from harm. A parent's failure to take reasonable steps to protect a child could result in criminal charges if the omission
were considered to be at least reckless.

Ordinarily, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless he or she is aware of all the facts that make his or her conduct criminal.
However, if a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, an act or omission involving that risk may constitute
negligent conduct that leads to criminal charges. Negligence gives rise to criminal charges only if the defendant took a very
unreasonable risk by acting or failing to act.

Intent

Criminal intent must be formed before the act, and it must unite with the act. It need not exist for any given length of time before the
act; the intent and the act can be as instantaneous as simultaneous or successive thoughts.

A jury may be permitted to infer criminal intent from facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it existed. For
example, the intent to commit Burglary may be inferred from the accused's possession of tools for picking locks.

Criminal intent may also be presumed from the commission of the act. That is, the prosecution may rely on the presumption that a
person intends the Natural and Probable Consequences of his or her voluntary acts. For example, the intent to commit murder may
be demonstrated by the particular voluntary movement that caused the death, such as the pointing and shooting of a firearm. A
defendant may rebut this presumption by introducing evidence showing a lack of criminal intent. In the preceding example, if the
murder defendant reasonably believed that the firearm was actually a toy, evidence showing that belief might rebut the presumption
that death was intended.

Proof of general criminal intent is required for the conviction of most crimes. The intent element is usually fulfilled if the defendant
was generally aware that he or she was very likely committing a crime. This means that the prosecution need not prove that the
defendant was aware of all of the elements constituting the crime. For example, in a prosecution for the possession of more than a
certain amount of a controlled substance, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the precise quantity. Other examples
of general-intent crimes are Battery, rape, Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment.

Some crimes require a Specific Intent. Where specific intent is an element of a crime, it must be proved by the prosecution as an
independent fact. For example, Robbery is the taking of property from another's presence by force or threat of force. The intent
element is fulfilled only by evidence showing that the defendant specifically intended to steal the property. Unlike general intent,
specific intent may not be inferred from the commission of the unlawful act. Examples of specific-intent crimes are solicitation,
attempt, conspiracy, first-degree premeditated murder, assault, Larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretense, and
Embezzlement.

Most criminal laws require that the specified crime be committed with knowledge of the act's criminality and with criminal intent.
However, some statutes make an act criminal regardless of intent. When a statute is silent as to intent, knowledge of criminality and
criminal intent need not be proved. Such statutes are called Strict Liability laws. Examples are laws forbidding the sale of alcohol to
minors, and Statutory Rape laws.

The doctrine of transferred intent is another nuance of criminal intent. Transferred intent occurs where one intends the harm that is
actually caused, but the injury occurs to a different victim or object. To illustrate, the law allows prosecution where the defendant
intends to burn one house but actually burns another instead. The concept of transferred intent applies to Homicide, battery, and
Arson.