Why is it the case that contractual liability is usually defined by basis of foreseeability rather than negligence (like in tort law)? I am looking a good explanation for this from economics. I understand that contract breach can be seen itself as negligent act. I also understand the economic reasoning behind foreseeability doctrine (or Hadley-Baxendale).

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think this question could be greatly improved by including or linking to some of the concepts. For example I lack a law background and hence even though I have read about an economic reasoning for negligence damages, I am not familiar with the exact definition of contractual liability nor with the concepts of tort law, foreseeability doctrine, Hadley-Baxendale. Also I am assuming this question is within the context of US law. $\endgroup$
    – Giskard
    Nov 3 '15 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with densep. There are several economists here with an interest in the economics of contracting, but you can't count on them to be familiar with legal terminiogy. Some definitions would help us find a middle-ground. $\endgroup$
    – Ubiquitous
    Nov 4 '15 at 19:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.