Editing Tort (section)

===Contract law===
{{Further|#Business torts}}

Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action which are not defined in other areas such as contract or [[fiduciary]] law.<ref name=Harpwood>Harpwood V. (2009). [http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf Modern Tort Law, 7th Edition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615111031/http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf |date=15 June 2013 }}. Routledge. [http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf Ch. 1 available as sample] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615111031/http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf |date=15 June 2013 }}     .</ref> However, tort and contract law are similar in that both involve a breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred<ref name=Harpwood/> and it may not be clear whether an action "[[wiktionary:sound|sounds]] in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply for each (such as a [[statute of limitations]]), courts will determine which is the "[[gravamen]]" (the most applicable). Circumstances such as those involving professional negligence<ref name=Harpwood/> may involve both torts and contracts. The choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic [[damages]] such as [[pain and suffering]] may be awarded.<ref name=Harpwood/> [[Punitive damage]]s are relatively uncommon in contractual cases versus tort cases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sullivan|first=Timothy J.|date=1976|title=Punitive damages in the law of contract: the reality and the illusion of legal change.|url=http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpubs|journal=Minnesota Law Review|volume=61|pages=207|url-status=bot: unknown|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216042004/http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpubs|archive-date=16 December 2017}}</ref> However, compensation for defective but not unsafe products is typically available only through contractual actions<ref name=Harpwood/> through the law of [[warranty]].

In the United Kingdom, plaintiffs in professional negligence cases have some degree of choice in which law while in commercial transactions contract law applies; in unusual cases, intangible losses have been awarded in contract law cases.<ref name=Harpwood/>

The English case [[Hadley v Baxendale|''Hadley v. Baxendale'']] (1854), which was adopted in the United States, split contract and tort damages by foreseeability of the damages when the contract was made.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanbar.org/publications/under_construction/2016/winter2016/economic_loss_rule.html|title=A "Simple" Explanation of the Economic-Loss Rule {{!}} Forum on the Construction Industry|website=www.americanbar.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506124315/http://www.americanbar.org/publications/under_construction/2016/winter2016/economic_loss_rule.html|archive-date=6 May 2017|url-status=dead|access-date=25 March 2018}}</ref> In the United States, the [[pure economic loss]] rule was adopted to further prevent negligence lawsuits in breach of contract cases.<ref name=":1" /> This "economic loss rule" was adopted by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ''East River Steamship Corp V Transamerica Delaval Inc.'' (1986) and expanded across the country in a non-uniform manner, leading to confusion.<ref name=":0" /> Among other examples, the tort of [[insurance bad faith]] arises out of a contractual relationship, and "collateral torts" such as [[wrongful dismissal]] involving possible overlap with [[labour law]] contracts.<ref name=Gergen/>