Difference between Tort and Contract

Difference between Tort and Contract

                                          

Tort	Contract
Tort occurs when the right available to all the persons in general (right in rem) is violated without the existence of any contract.	A breach of contract occurs due to a breach of a duty (right in persona) agreed upon by the parties themselves.
Victim is compensated for unliquidated damages as per the judgment of the judges. Thus, damages are always unliquidated.	Victim is compensated as per the terms of the contract and damages are usually liquidated.
Duty is fixed by the law of the land and is towards all the persons.	Duty towards each other is affixed by the contract agreed to by the parties.
Doctrine of privity of contract does not apply because there is no contract between the parties. This was held in the case of Donaghue vs Stevenson 1932.	Only the parties within the ambit of ‘privity of contract’ can initiate the suit.
Tort applies even in cases where a contract is void. For example, a minor may be liable in Tort.	When a contract is void, there is no question of compensation. For example, a contract with a minor is void ab initio and so a minor cannot be held liable for anything.
In some torts like malicious prosecution , motive is relevant.	Motive is immaterial in contracts
Justice is met by compensating the victim for his injury and exemplary damages may also be awarded to the victim. In Bhim Singh vs State of J K AIR 1986 – the plaintiff was awarded exemplary damages for violation of his rights given by art 21.	Justice is met only by compensating the victim for actual loss.