DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW OF TORT, CRIMES, CONTRACT, QUASI-CONTRACT

ABSTRACT

This article provides an in-depth overview of the distinction between the law of torts, crimes, contracts, and quasi-contracts—the four underlying principles of civil and criminal law. It aims to help the readers understand the applications and fundamental principles of these important areas of law. Focusing on the Indian legal system, torts are civil wrongs and there is no separate statute for it so, the victims of torts seek compensation; while criminal laws covers all the crimes through the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provides punishments for crimes. Generally, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, except for quasi-contracts, governs all the contracts. Quasi-contracts are not legal agreements, but they are to prevent unjust enrichments. This article uses a comparative analysis to explore the key parameters of each, highlighting their differences in intention, obligations, and remedies. It also examines recent developments including theoretical perspectives, and their practical implications in India.

KEYWORDS

Torts, CriminalLaw, Contract, Quasi-Contracts, Vicarious Liability, Absolute Liability, Unjust Enrichment, Civil Wrong, Public Wrong

INTRODUCTION

In a country as legally diverse as India, the line separating civil wrongs from the criminal offences is often blurred-yet the distinction between torts, crime, contracts, and quasi-contract from the very backbone of the legal system. The difference between these areas of law are not merely academic but is deeply embedded in the daily functioning of Indian course. Nevertheless, here the question arises why is this distinction is significant? In addition, what will happen if it overlaps?

In a legal framework issues like misapplication of legal principles, inappropriate remedies and jurisdictional confusion can be the result of it if the implications are not distinguished. For the appropriate legal enforcement and consistency of legal framework, these concepts must not overlap.

Taking an example into consideration say – ‘A’ a contractor, is hired by ‘J’ to renovate her kitchen. They agree on $10,000 and ‘J’ pays ‘A’$5,000 upfront for the materials. However, ‘A’ uses substandard material during the renovations, a heavy piece of equipment falls and injures ‘J’, causing her to miss work. Now, how will the court classifies for the ‘A’s’ actions and what action will they consider as- crime, tort, contracts or quasi-contract?

Thus, it is necessary here to clarify what they exactly mean. This article examines the judicial decisions, recent developments, comparative analysis to show how they differ from each other and implied in India.

DEFINITION – LAW OF TORTS, CRIMES, CONTRACT, QUASI-CONTRACTS

LAW OF TORTS

The word “tort” is derived from Latin term “tortum”, which means twisted. Thus, any conduct that is twisted is known as tort.

According to Salmond, ‘a tort is civil wrong for which the remedy is a common action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust or any other equitable obligation.[1]

According to section 2(m) of the limitation act, 1963, “tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. The person committing a tort is known as a tortfeasor.”[2]

The law of tort is a subset of the whole body of civil law that is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust because it with those civil wrongs in which the damages awarded to the plaintiff are unliquidated. In general, tort law are not codified but has evolved through various cases time to time. Historically, the principles of torts were derived from English common law but, India has only adopted few laws.

There are three types of liabilities in torts

1. Strict liability: it says that if any person has a dangerous hazardous substance in his premises, he will be liable for all the damages caused by the escape of such substances. It is called no fault liability.

Illustration

A ferocious dog of the defendant must escape out of his reach and caused damage to his neighbor.

2. Absolute liability: It states that if a person who carries out a dangerous activity causes any harm, then the person who has carried the activity becomes absolutely liability. This kind of liability was to handle ultra – hazardous substances produces by industries to accept their negligence even though they took preventive measures.

Illustration– in the Oleum gas leak case, the industries were liable disregarding the intent or negligence.

3. Vicarious liability is liability of person for an act done by another person. It follows the principle of ‘quit facit per alium facit per se’ – a person who authorizes another person on his behalf, will be liable for every wrongful act that his agent does during the course of employment.

Illustration

‘A’ a diver hired by ‘B’. ‘A’ in the course of his employment caused an accident. ‘A’ will be vicariously liable for the act caused by ‘B’.

‘Z’ is a doctor in a hospital, there is a negligence done by him during a surgery then the hospital will be vicariously liable for it.

CRIME

‘Any act which is prohibited and punished by law’ is a crime. in the words of Blackstone ‘ crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it.’[3]

In India the crimes are examined with the help of a legal maxim ‘actus non-facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’ which means the act itself does not constitute the guilt unless done with guilty mind.

The four essential elements that are required to constitute a crime:

Human being: a human must do the act.
Actus rea: it is an act done by the person or omitted by the person.
Mens rea: intention while doing the act
Harm : there must be an injury caused by the person to another

India has a codified statue to govern it which is the India penal code,1860 now it is known as Bhartiya Naya Sanhita(BNS). These laws states, the punishment for the offenders in the form of imprisonment and fines.

For examples- theft, murder, rape etc.

CONTRACTS

It is derived from a Latin term ‘contract rum’ that means bringing together. Contract law is the oldest merchandise law in India. In India, contract is governed under, the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The main purpose of bringing this law was to determine the circumstances under which promises made by contracting parties shall be legally binding on them. It specifies the remedies that are available against a person who fails to perform the contract.

Contract is defined under 2(h) of ICA, 1872 : an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties. For a contract to be valid, it must include:

Offer: there must be an proposal by one party
Acceptance: another party must accept it with free consent
Lawful Consideration: the consideration must be lawful. For instance, C promised to give D a certain amount of money for killing P. If D fails to give the money, then the law will not protect it.

QUASI-CONTRACTS

A quasi- contract which also known as Implied in law contracts. In times when there is an absence of formal agreement between the parties the court imposes obligations on both the parties to prevent unjust enrichments and ensure fairness to both the parties.

In certain cases, a person is obliged to compensate another, although the basis of obligation is neither contract nor tort. This situation occurs when a person gets unjust enrichments at the cost of another, thus has an obligation to compensate

India deals with following obligation under ICA, 1872:

Claim for necessaries supplied to a person incompetent to contract.
Reimbursement of money paid due by another.
Obligations of person enjoying benefit of non- gratuitous
Responsibility of finder of goods
Liability of a person getting benefitted under mistake or coercion

Illustration

D and V jointly owe Rs. 100 to F, D alone pays the amount to F, and V not knowing the fact pays Rs. 100 to F again. F is bound to repay the amount. If Q by mistake leaves his goods in W’s house and W uses, it for his own use then w is bound to pay to Q.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Distinction between:

TORTS AND CRIMES

LAW OF TORTS	CRIMINAL LAW
It is also known as civil or private wrong. It is always against the individual.	Crimes are always against the society. Thus, they are well- known as public wrong.
It defends personal rights.	It keeps society in order, to prevent crimes
It is an un-codified law.	It is a codified law.
Matters dealt under civil court.	Matters dealt under criminal courts.
The intentions are not relevant	The intentions are always relevant
As remedy it offers compensations which is unliquidated damages	It provides punishments and fine given under IPC, 1872

CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS:-

CONTRACTS	QUASI-CONTRACTS
It is an agreement between two parties.	It is not an actual agreement but a constructive contract.
Done with free consent	It is an obligation imposed by the court.
Liabilities exists by the terms of the parties	Liabilities exists independence of the agreement and are based on justice , equity and good conscience
Has right in rem and right in personam	Only applies right in personam
To put the agreement in force , it is required to be registered	Can be raised through legal fiction

TORTS, CRIMES, CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACT:-

ASPECTS	TORTS	CRIMES	CONTRACTS	QUASI-CONTRACT
NATURE	Civil wrong (private)	Public wrong	Private agreement	Imposed obligations
REMEDIES	Un-liquidated damages	Punishment (imprisonment and fines)	Liquidated damages	Fixed damages
DUTY	General duty to public	Duty towards society	Mutual obligations	Specific obligations

KEY JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Several landmark cases have highlighted the difference between these concepts:

In the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)[4], the House of Lords ruled in favor of Mrs. Donoghue, establishing that there is negligence on the side of the manufacturer. Even though the she did not buy the beer herself, there is still a duty of care that she owed.

This further addresses the principle of strict liability, which holds the manufactures strictly liable for every defective piece of product and “neighbor principle” describing that if anyone who harmed by the negligence of other closely or directly; must be taken care of to avoid injure or harm. This also expanded the scope of tort covering the harm caused by the defective products.

In the case, R v. Cunningham (1957)[5] the court gave significance to the criminal intent (Mens Rea), that there must be an intention to harm the person. It also introduced a “test of recklessness”- to see whether the person had recklessly disregarded the foreseeable risk of specific resulting harm or not.
In the Supreme Court ruling of the case Bhim Singh v. state of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)[6], the court applied the principle of ‘injuria sine damnum’ i.e. injury without damage. In this case, Bhim Singh was an assembly candidate was stopped by to attend the assembly session. The court recognized that it was a false imprisonment and just by setting him, free will not be a proper justice. Thus, he got some monetary compensation.

The court emphasized that even there is no physical harm but infringement of constitutional rights leads to tort

MC. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)[7]: The case establishes the rule of ‘absolute liability’. It clarified the difference between the strict and absolute liability as well as it provided a statue to punish hazardous industries.

It stated that the absolute liability held defendant liable irrespective of the fact that there was some precautions taken. The ruling underscored that tort law’s focuses on compensating victims instead of punishment.

The genesis of a general offer came from the landmark case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball co. (1893)[8], It set principle of unilateral contracts, where an offer can be accepted by performing a specific act. The court held that for general offer, there is no need for a communication to be accepted. Instead, is the condition is performed by someone then it will be regarded as communication. Thus, here the person given compensation.
Pye Graham v (2002)[9]: The case signifies the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Quasi- contract. This occurs when a person enriched on other person’s expenses, which law sees as unjust. In this case, Graham occupied Pye’s land without his permission for over 12 years. The court ruled the party who benefited on the expenses of other is required to compensate them even there is no formal contract between them.
In the case Shyam Sundar v. Ram Kumar (1972)[10], the court has stated the difference between contracts and quasi contracts. It addresses that contracts are on free consent between the parties while quasi- contracts are on principles of equity and good conscience.

Further, the court clarified that the quasi – contracts have obligations imposed by law to prevent party from doing unjust possessions.

The case Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968)[11]is for understanding the fundamental difference between contract and quasi–contracts. The court stated that in Indian law there is a relationship between proprietary rights and contractual obligations. “Quasi –contracts are not contract at all”. It is an obligation, which the court imposes when there is an absence of agreement and other party as placed possession.
KedarNath Bhargava v. L.I.C of India (1981)[12] addresses contract and tort, critically focusing on the quasi-contractual obligations arising from equitable principle than mutual agreement. This case refers complexities of land acquisitions in India regarding fair compensations.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

With rapid advancement of technologies, all the four laws have seen significant changes and developments specifically in the areas of cyber-crimes. With an instant growth of cyber torts like online defamation, data breach, and cyber-bullying there are many laws and amendments emerging with it to prevent it from happening like Cybercrime Prevention against Women and Children (CCPAC) Act. The digitalization has now expanded its way to online contracts with digital signatures, which governs under the Information technology act, 2000. Now slowly greater emphasis on addressing unjust enrichment with the help of quasi –contractual remedies and equitable compensation introduced.

In the case Divya Dutt v. state of Haryana (2023)[13],the plaintiff was an actor who filed the case regarding defamatory content that was posted by an individual online. The court ruled in the favor of the actors and granted her relief by ordering the removal of the content and some monetary compensation.

In the recent judgment of Ramesh Chandra v. Neelam Enterprises (2024)[14], the plaintiff by mistake paid a big sum to the enterprise, later asked for it but declined. Since this case involved was of unjust enrichment, the court compelled the enterprises to return the sum by the application of quasi- contractual principles.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the tort, contracts, quasi-contracts, and crimes, the category of private law that explains the responsibility of citizens to each other as well as the responsibility of the legal system to its citizens contains basic responses to the ethical as well as social questions posed by society. It is also essential to know these areas, as it determines how one will approach issues of law and the proper application of justice.

Tort law offers a means by which parties can obtain compensation for civil wrongs while laying emphasis on responsibility and orientation towards personal rights. Economic relations are made possible by contract law, which creates binding relations while quasi contracts exist to achieve equity in instances when there are no contracts to enforce. Criminal law serves a different purpose in that it protects the community from harm by creating sanctions for people who commit acts, which are harmful to public peace or safety.

Legal approaches are rarely mutually exclusive or not so important within the given context. It is important for the practitioners, decision makers, and the public to acknowledge such ability to perceive in order to determine what the suitable legal remedy is or what strategy is employed in a given situation.

These factors affecting laws will aptly change as society changes in its complexity. People working within the legal field in order to enable them deal with the problem of human relations and the law, which is dynamic and ever changing, should comprehensively learn these four legal concepts- torts, contracts, and quasi-contracts, and crimes.

REFERENCES

Law of Torts: Dr. R.K. Bangia [Pg. 9, 10,11, 12, 15 ]Allahabad Law Agency
Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562
R v. Cunningham, [1957] QB 396 (CA)
Kedar Nath Bhargava v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1981 SC 1400
Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[ AIR 1968 SC 1218]
Ramesh Chandra v. Neelam Enterprises, (2024) SC
Divya Dutt v. State of Haryana, (2023) SC
Shyam Sundar v. Ram Kumar [AIR 1972 SC 1801]
Pye Graham [2002] [EWCA Civic 258]
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.,[1893] QB 256
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1985 SC 1057
Lexpeeps, Distinction Between Law of Tort, Contract, Quasi-Contract and Crime, https://lexpeeps.in/distinction-between-law-of-tort-contract-quasi-contract-and-crime/
Ambition Law Institute, Difference Between Tort, Crime, Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust and Quasi-Contract, https://ambitionlawinstitute.com/differnce-between-tort-crime-breach-of-contract-breach-of-trust-and-quasi-contract/ (last visited Sept. 8, 2024)
Wikipedia, Contract, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract (last visited Sept. 8, 2024)

[1] Law of Torts: Dr. R.K. Bangia [Pg. 9, 10,11, 12, 15 ]Allahabad Law Agency

[2] Law of Torts: Dr. R.K. Bangia [Pg. 9, 10,11, 12, 15 ]Allahabad Law Agency

[3] Law of Torts: Dr. R.K. Bangia [Pg. 9, 10,11, 12, 15 ]Allahabad Law Agency

[4] Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

[5] R v. Cunningham, [1957] QB 396 (CA)

[6] Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1985 SC 1057

[7] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

[8] Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.,[1893] QB 256

[9] Pye Graham [2002] [EWCA Civic 258]

[10] Shyam Sundar v. Ram Kumar [AIR 1972 SC 1801]

[11] Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[ AIR 1968 SC 1218]

[12] Kedar Nath Bhargava v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1981 SC 1400

[13] Divya Dutt v. State of Haryana, (2023) SC

[14]Ramesh Chandra v. Neelam Enterprises, (2024) SC

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.