Rights, Remedies, and Normal Expectancies in Tort and Contract

In this short essay, I criticize Professor Jane Stapleton's argument (defended in her article ‘The Normal Expectancies Measure in Tort Damages' (1997) 113 LQR 257) that “[c]lassifying compensatory damages into different measures of damages is a useful analytical device in the study of the law of obligations”(257). Specifically, I query her view that: (i) the measures of damages awarded in tort and contract should be distinguished on the basis of the differing financial destinations to which the plaintiff is re-positioned, and (ii) once this is done it is clear that, contrary to the orthodox view, holding defendants liable in tort for failing, through their carelessness, to improve the plaintiff's position is consistent with the ordinary principles of tort law