The difference between Tort and Contract is simple: A Tort constitutes a civil wrong while a

Contract refers to an agreement between two or more parties.

• Definition of Tort and Contract:

• A Tort refers to a civil wrong. It is a private wrong in that it constitutes a wrongful act in the
form of a harm or injury caused to a person or their property. Torts are categorized into
Intentional Torts, Strict Liability Torts, and Negligent Torts.

• A Contract refers to an oral or written agreement between two or more parties, who intend to
create legal obligations, to perform some work or service in return for a valuable consideration,
which is usually in the form of a payment.

• Concept of Tort and Contract:

• When a person commits a Tort, the court will not look at the Tort but at the harm or injury
suffered by the victim as a result of that Tort. The court will typically order the defendant to pay
compensation or provide other relief to the injured party.

• A Contract has an offer and an acceptance of that offer and the parties involved must have
capacity to contract. A breach of Contract by either party may result in awarding the remedy of
Damages.

 A tort is a violation of right in rem while breach of contract is an infringement of a right in

personam.
 Duties are imposed by law under law of torts towards the world at large, while in contract
duty is based on privity of contract.

• Examples of Tort and Contract:

• Examples of Torts include occupier’s liability, nuisance, economic Torts, negligence,

defamation or product liability.

• An example of a Contract is an agreement between Company A to provide a security service

to Company B in return for a valuable consideration paid by Company B to Company A.

Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) A.C. 562

i) A went to a restaurant with a woman friend and bought one bottle of ginger beer
manufactured by the defendants. The woman consumed part of the contents but
when the remainder was poured into the glass, she observed the decomposed body
of a snail in it, the ginger beer bottle, being made of dark opaque glass and sealed
with metal cap, the presence of snail could not have been observed earlier.
 ii) The woman brought an action against the manufacturer for negligence and alleged
that by taking a part of the contaminated drink, she had contracted serious illness.
iii) Here the manufacture was under a contractual duty towards the retailer but he also
owned a duty in tort to take reasonable care not to harm the customer.

Submitted by: -
Sougata Banik
Roll- 0007
B.com LLB