Contract The three-way comparison (the expansion of 1.3's table — the exam's favourite long question): Face Tort Crime Contract Wrong's character Private (the individual's right) Public (the state's order) Private (the parties' promise) Duty owed to Persons generally (right in rem) The state (the public) The promisee only (right in personam) Who sues The victim The state (the prosecution) The promisee Standard The reasonable person / intent Beyond reasonable doubt The agreement's terms Remedy Unliquidated damages; injunctions Punishment (fine, imprisonment) Liquidated damages; specific performance Compromise Settleable Not privately compoundable (generally) Settleable The act's dual life The assault: tort + crime; the careless service: tort + contract The boundary rules to state: (i) the same act may be both crime and tort — the parallel proceedings (the acquittal does not bar the claim); (ii) the tort-contract boundary: the duty's source decides (the contractual duty by agreement; the tortious duty by law) — the negligent performance cases can run both routes; (iii) the breach of contract is NEVER a tort by itself (the definition excludes it) — but the same facts may carry both wrongs.
Exam Focus Long questions: (i) Define tort and explain its functions; (ii) The essential elements (the duty-breach-causation-damage ladder with the neighbour principle and the reasonable person); (iii) The foundation theories + the liabilities' comparison table; (iv) Strict vs. absolute liability (the exceptions' presence-and-absence). Short questions: unliquidated damages; the neighbour principle; the two-malice split (malice in law vs. in fact); act of God. Trick areas: (i) "Other than breach of contract" is IN the definition — the exclusion is definitional, not evidential; (ii) Strict liability HAS defences; absolute liability has NONE — the pair examiners love; (iii) The same act can be crime AND tort — one does not exclude the other.