the world suffers a lot.

not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of
good people (napoleon)
Tort Vs. Contract;

Torts is basically civil wrong and not a crime and is different from breach of contract. It affects
right in rem and not in person-am. It usually results in damage for which damages are rewarded...
keep one thing in mind that damage here means violation of some legal right and not any other,
though a person might not have suffered any physical injury and just legal right is violated so
here it will be falling within the category of torts.....
It is important to bear in mind first the different measures of loss adopted in contract and tort.
Contractual damages are generally awarded so as to protect the claimants expectation interest, to
give him the benefit of the bargain: the claimant is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the
same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed. This may be
contrasted with the objective in tort, where the court awards damages so as to put the claimant in
the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong. Suppose the
defendant dishonestly induces the claimant to enter a contract to buy the defendants car by making
a false statement of fact. The statement is found to have been incorporated as a term of the contract.
The claimant pays 5,000 for a car which has a market value of 4,000. Had the statement been
true, the car would have been worth 7,000. As every law student ought to know, the claimant could
recover damages of 1,000 in the tort of deceit51 or 2,000 for breach of contract. Thus the duty to
compensate imposed in contract is more onerous than that imposed in tort, because the respective
duties seek to vindicate different rights. Contractual damages vindicate the performance right: they
put the claimant in the same position as if the defendant had performed his promise.
The distinction between tort and contract remedies has significant practical effect. Unlike contract
claims, which generally restrict a defendants liability to those damages reasonably foreseeable as a
result of the breach of the contractual obligation, tort claims expose defendants to liability for all
harm proximately caused by the defendants conduct. As a result, plaintiffs lawyersstrive to
persuade courts that borderline cases should be classified as tort in order to avoid the contract
limitation on damages. For example, in Young v. Abalene Pest Control Services, Inc., the
plaintiffs contracted with the defendant for the extermination of insects in their home.
Nevertheless, pests remained, allegedly causing the plaintiffs to become so nervous and depressed
that they required medical treatment. The plaintiffs brought action against the exterminator, seeking
damages not only for breach of contract, but rather than tort, the court refused to grant damages for
emotional distress. Had the court failed to respect the boundary between contract and tort, it would
have improperly allocated risks to the defendant for beyond what it bargained for.
Like the contract at issue in Young, contracts generally place a value on the allocation of risk, which
reflected in the price and/or other terms. Presumably, the contract price would have been
considerably higher if the risk of plaintiffs emotional distress for the exterminators failure to
completely eliminate all insects had been allocated to the pest control service.
To the extent tort law overlaps with contract law, it subverts the parties intent, and does so in the
contexts of law in which the fact finder sits unconfined by the evidentiary rules of contract disputes,
such as the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and the four corner doctrine. The resulting
uncertainty in commercial transactions may cause a chilling effect on commercial enterprise, as
businesses fearful of unfathomable tort exposure might lose the ability to respond flexibly to
changing economic conditions or hesitate to enter into contracts at all in fast-moving aspects of
commercial enterprise. The Rule, when properly applied, helps to maintain the essential distinction
between contract and tort.

References
1. Banks McDowell, Foreseeability in Contract and Tort: The Problem of Responsibility and
Remoteness, 36 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 286, 287-88(1985/86)
2. Young v. Telecome, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862, 865-66 (7th Cir. 1999) (Posner, J.)