For What Must We Pay? Causation and Counterfactual Baselines.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This article focuses on causation and counterfactual baselines in compensation. The difference between tort and contract liability lies in the different bases of the primary obligation breached by a defendant. In tort, that obligation is nonpromise-based, whereas in contract, the obligation arises out of the defendant's promise. Increasingly, contract law has eliminated any distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance by treating all cases as instances of misfeasance. The notion of unjust enrichment cuts across torts, contracts, property, and even criminal law.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1181-1271
Number of pages91
JournalSan Diego Law Review
Volume40
Issue number4
StatePublished - Sep 1 2003

Keywords

  • COMPENSATION (Law)
  • JUDGMENTS (Law)
  • UNJUST enrichment (International law)
  • OBLIGATIONS (Law)
  • CRIMINAL liability
  • CONTRACTS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'For What Must We Pay? Causation and Counterfactual Baselines.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this