Contract and Tort

The court recognized the right only when there is a remedy on the principle Ubi remedium ibi jus, which means where there is remedy there is right. One had to search for the proper remedy that suits his right then only he could succeed. If there was no remedy there was no right and there is no case. By passage of time the complicated litigations coming before the courts necessitated to change the concept of law. Accordingly the concept of law was changed as Ubi jus ibi remedium, which means where there is right there is remedy. This concept enable the courts to see that if there is a right existing then it will decide what is the remedy. Right of the litigant is given prominence over the remedies to protect the rights effectively. Under the new concept the courts have provided a remedy whenever there has been unjustifiable interference with the rights of a person.
When the law of contract is read strictly, we find the rights are restricted to its terms and conditions. The law recognizes the rights that are specifically created by a contract and ignores if that right is not covered in the terms of contract. And such rights created by the contract are limited to only the parties to the contract, a third party do not derive any right against any of the parties to the contract even though the loss is caused to him due to the negligence. It provides relief to the parties to the contact only, that too it is limited to the extent of monitory or economic loss. The law of contract see whether there is any breach of contract by either of the parties to the contract but non else. The remedies in law of contract are strictly connected with the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by the parties. Once all the terms and condition of the contract are fulfilled no cause of action arises to either parties, even though any inconvenience caused due to unjustifiable interference by the other party with in the terms and conditions. But the law says that no person can interfere unjustifiably with the rights of the other person. If that happens the court provides remedy not under the law of contract but under the law of tort. This is how the tort overcomes the restriction involved in strict reading of the law of contract. The law fills up the gap in the law of contract mostly in cases of negligence of one of parties to the contract due to which the other part causes mental agony or physical or mental loss in addition to the economic loss. Some time the party who is not a party to the contract too subjects to the mental agony or physical loss due to the negligence act of the any other parson. In certain situations the courts cannot find any remedy in the law of contract, but the law of tort fills up this gap and provides the remedy.
Contract and Tort inter relationship[9]:
Contract and Tort have interrelationship as far as the remedies are concerned. Plaintiffs are at a liberty to choose the remedy either in law of contract or in Tort. The law of contract is specific and remedies under contract are time consuming and costly when compared to the Tort. As discussed above sometimes remedy cannot be found in contact in such conditions the remedy lies in the Tort. Where a dispute consists of ingredients of both contract and Tort as well then the plaintiff is at a liberty to choose the action either under contract or under Tort. It means that mere existence of all the ingredients of Contract do