RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

LAW, PATIALA, PUNJAB

LAW OF TORTS (SEM -1)

SUBMITTEED BY: VATSAL DHAR

ROLL NO.: 19140

GROUP NO.: 27

SUBMITTED TO: MRS. JASWINDER KOUR

TOPIC: TORT OF PASSING OFF AND CONVERSION

 AKNOWLEDGMENT

I express my deep sense of gratitude to my respected and learned guides, Dr

Jaswinder Kour for her valuable help and guidance, I am thankful to her for
the encouragement she has given me in completing the project. I am also
grateful to respected registrar Dr. Naresh Kumar Vats and to our respected
vice chancellor Dr. Paramjit S. Jaswal for permitting me to utilize all the
necessary facilities of the institution. I am also thankful to all the other faculty
& staff members for their kind co-operation and help. Lastly, I would like to
express my deep apperception towards my classmates and my indebt ness to my
parents for providing me the moral support and encouragement.

Vatsal Dhar
19140
CERTIFICATE
 TABLE OF CONTENT

 INTRODUCTION
 HISTORY OF TORTS
 ESSENTIALS OF TORTS
 SOME DEFENITIONS OF TORT
 TORT OF PASSING OFF
 TORT OF CONVERSION
 CASE STUDIES ON PASSING OFF
 CASE STUDIES ON CONVERSION
 CONCLUSION
 INRODUCTION

The word ‘tort’ means a conduct which is not straight of lawful, but on the other hand,
twisted, cooked or unlawful. The word ‘tort’ is equivalent to the English term ‘wrong’. So far
there is no scientific definition which could mention certain specific elements, the presence of
which could constitute a tort as, for example, it has been possible in case of a contract. Law
as a body of rules is essential concerned with maintenance of social order by regulating the
conduct of individuals in the society. It embodies all those social, political and moral rules of
conduct which formed the genesis of DHARMA in the ancient Hindu society. The word ‘tort’
is similar to Sanskrit word “jimha” which was under ancient Hindu law used in the sense of
tortious or fraudulent conduct1. Tort is totally different from criminal offence. In an action of
civil wrong, i.e. tort the aggrieved party called ‘plaintiff’ institutes a civil proceedings or civil
suits against the wrong doer i.e. the defendant. The remedy for an action in tort is damages
which means that the plaintiff may recover damages for the injury(wrong) caused to him by
the defendant. Commonly tort is confused with crime many acts (like homicide) are both
criminal and tortuous. But torts and crimes are different, and the difference is worth noting. A
crime is an act against the people as a whole 2. Society punishes the murderer; it does not
usually compensate the family of the victim. Tort law, on the other hand, views the death as a
private wrong for which damages are owed. In a civil case, the tort victim or his family, not
the state, brings the action3. The judgment against a defendant in a civil tort suit is usually
expressed in monetary terms, not in terms of prison times or fines, and is the legal system’s
way of trying to make up for the victim’s loss.

1
Quoted from text of Narada cited in Priyanath Sen in his book on Jurisprudence (p.221)
2
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal The law of torts 23rd edition (Wadhwa and company, Nagpur)
3
Goldberg JCP, the constitutional status of tort law: Due process and the right to a law for the redress o Quoted
from text of Narada cited in Priyanath Sen in his book on Jurisprudence (p.221)
f wrongs. (Yale Law Journal 2005).
 HISTORY OF TORT

The word ‘TORT’ has been derived from a Latin term “tortum”, which means to twist. Ever
since the dawn of human civilisation maintenance of peace in society has been a baffling
problem. As Emilie Durkheim righty stated that even a society which is composed of person
with angelic qualities would not be free from violation of the norms of that society because
different groups have variable and often incompatible interest in the society which give rise
to conflicts eventually resulting in the wrongful acts, be it in crime or a civil wrong.
The term tort was introduced into the terminology of English Law by the French speaking
lawyers and Judges of the Courts of Normandy and Angevin Kings of England4. As a
technical term of English law, tort has acquired a special meaning as a species of civil injury
or wrong. Till about the middle of the seventeenth Century tort was an obscure term, at a time
when procedure was considered more important than the right of an individual5. This
emphasis on procedural aspect for determining the success for a case continued for some 500
years, till 1852, when the Common Law Procedure Act was passed and primacy of substance
over the procedure gradually gained firmer ground. Today the maxim as it stands is ubi jus
ubi remedium6, i.e. where there is right there is remedy. Tort is the French equivalent of the
English word wrong and of the Roman law term delict7. It is expected out of everyone to
behave in a straightforward manner and when one deviates from this straight path into
crooked ways he is said to have committed a tort. Though many prominent writers have tried
to define Tort, it is difficult to do so for varied reasons. The key reason among this being, that
the law of Torts is based on decided cases i.e. doctrine of precedence8 9. Judges while
deciding a case, feel their primary duty is to adjudge the case on hand rather than to lay down
wider rules and hence they seldom lay down any definition of a legal term. Furthermore, the
law of tort is still growing.

4
 John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire p 24
5
John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire p 24
6
oxford university press, ubi jus ibi remedium 2012
7
Encyclopedia Britannica <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507759/Roman-law>
8
An opinion of a federal or state court of appeals establishing a legal principle or rule that must be followed by
lower courts when faced with similar legal issues. For example, once the California Supreme Court decided that
employers may fire an employee who fails a drug test because of his use of medical marijuana, all lower courts
in California must follow this rule, cornell law dictionary, Cornell law school
9
David H Moore Law(makers) of the land
During British rule, courts in India were enjoined by Acts of Parliament in the UK and by
Indian enactments to act according to justice, equity and good conscience if there was no
specific rule of enacted law applicable to the dispute in a suit10. In regard to suits for damages
for torts, courts followed the English common law insofar as it was consonant with justice,
equity and good conscience. They departed from it when any of its rules appeared
unreasonable and unsuitable to Indian conditions. An English statute dealing with tort law is
not by its own force applicable to India but may be followed here unless it is not accepted for
the reason just mentioned. The Indian courts before applying any rule of English law can see
whether it is suited to the Indian society and circumstances. The application of the English
law in India has therefore been a selective application. This fact is quite appreciated because
there is a difference in the societies and systems of Britain and India tort law is not codified
in India. This means whenever an exigency arises, a precedent shall be set up to take care of
the peculiar situation. During British rule, courts in India were enjoined by Acts of
Parliament in the UK11 and by Indian enactments to act according to justice, equity and good
conscience if there was no specific rule of enacted law applicable to the dispute in a suit. In
regard to suits for damages for torts, courts followed the English common law in so far as it
was consonant with justice, equity and good conscience. They departed from it when any of
its rules appeared unreasonable and unsuitable to Indian conditions. An English statute
dealing with tort law is not by its own force applicable to India but may be followed here
unless it is not accepted for the reason just mentioned.

ESSENTIALS OF TORT
10
Steve Russell Brief history of Indians, torts and English common law
11
Steve Russell Brief history of Indians, torts and English common law
To constitute tort following elements are essential-

1) Wrongful act committed by defendant

2) This wrongful act must have resulted in legal damage of plaintiff, i.e. injury to legal right
of plaintiff.

3) There is legal remedy in the form of an action unliquidated damages.

A) Wrongful act or omission -

                 In order to make person liable for tort, he must have done an act which he was not
expected to do,  or he must have omitted to do something which he was supposed to do.
Wrongful act is a fact which is contrary to the provisions of law, thereby causing injury to the
legal rights of another, e.g. A commits the act of trespass is liable for trespass, or publishes a
statement defaming another person is liable for defamation or wrongfully detains another
person is liable for false imprisonment.
Similarly when there is a legal duty to do some act and person fails to perform that duty,  he
can be make liable for such omission.

    The wrongful act or wrongful omission must be recognized by law. Therefore, a mere
social or moral wrong is not enforceable, e.g. if somebody fails to help a starving man or save
a drowning child is only a moral wrong hence not liable.

Cases -

1) Glasgow coronary V. Taylor, 1992

      In this case a corporation fails to put proper fencing to keep the Children away from a
poisonous tree and a child plucks and eat the fruits orchestra the poisonous tree and dies, the
corporation be liable for such omission.
2) General cleaning corporation Ltd V. Christmas 1953

        In this case employer failed to provide a safety belt for safe system off work liable for
consequence of such omission.

B) Legal damage: Infringement of legal right -

      A plaintiff has to prove that there has been a legal damage caused to him it is nothing but
an injury to the legal right of the plaintiff thus plaintiff has to prove that there was a wrongful
act or omission on the part of defendant, causing thereby breach of legal duty or violation of
legal right of the plaintiff vested in him and recognized by law. Therefore, there can be no
action under the law off tort unless there has been violation of legal right or plaintiff. Hence
violation of legal right is actionable.  it is immaterial whether plaintiff suffered by any loss in
terms of money or not.
   This provision expressed by the maxim "injuria sine damno" means injury to the legal right
off plaintiff caused by defendant without any loss in term of money to the plaintiff.
   Since what is actionable is the violation of legal right, it therefore follows that when there is
no violation of legal right , no action can lie in the court of law even though defendants act
has caused some loss of harm or damage to plaintiff.
C)  Legal remedy -

             The wrongful act of the defendant must come under category of wrongs for which the
remedy is civil action for damages. The essential remedy for tort is an action. For damages
but there are other remedies also, e.g. injunction obtained in addition to damages in certain
cases of wrong. The law of tort is said to be a development of maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium"
that there is no writ without a remedy. If a man has a right he must of necessity have a means
to vindicte and maintain it and a remedy it, it is injured in exercise or enjoyment of it. It is in
vain to imagine right without remedy.  Thus where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal
wrong. If out of above three elements, any element is absent or missing, then there is no tort. 
Wrongful act and legal damages goes hand in hand. Legal damage means violation or
infringement of legal right.
 SOME DEFINITIONS OF TORT

SOME DEFINITIONS OF TORT BY DIFFERENT SCHOLORS ARE AS: -

American jurist Edward Kionka writes:

"Tort is an elusive concept (and) has defied ... attempts to formulate a useful definition.... The
one common element is that someone has sustained a loss or harm as the result of some act or
failure to act by another.

"Tort is perhaps the last bastion of the common law.... Tort law remains uncodified and in
large part unaffected by statute."

In Hall v Herbert, Canada's Supreme Court stated:

"It is difficult to define the nature of a tort. Indeed, one of the greatest writers in the field,
W.L. Prosser has expressed the opinion that it should not be defined.

"Perhaps it is easiest to begin by saying what it is not.

"A tort is not a crime. Although criminal law and tort law grew from the same roots they are
today quite distinct and different. Criminal law is designed to provide security for the citizens
of the state. It attempts to define that conduct which society finds abhorrent and therefore
necessary to control. Those who commit crimes are prosecuted by the state and are subject to
punishment which reflects the state's or society's abhorrence for the particular crime.

"Nor is the law of torts contractual in its nature. Contract law seeks to enforce the rights
which arise out of an agreement whose parties have voluntarily agreed to be bound by its
terms. The law of contract seeks to enforce the terms of the agreement specifically or provide
compensation for its breach. Nor can torts fall under the title of quasi-contractual relief. That
remedy seeks to prevent unjust enrichment that might, for example, arise out of payment of
money under mistake. The law of tort covers a much wider field than does contract.... It
provides a means whereby compensation, usually in the form of damages, may be paid for
injuries suffered by a party as a result of the wrongful conduct of others."

According to Salmond:

"Tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages
and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely
equitable obligation."

Prof. P H Winfield:

“Tortious Liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards
persons generally and its breach is redress able by an action for unliquidated damages.”

TORT OF PASSING OFF

Passing off is a wrong, a common law tort which protects the goodwill of a trader from
misrepresentation. Misleading the public into believing falsely, that the brand being projected
was the same as a well-known brand is a wrong and is known as the tort of “passing off”.

As held in the famous case of N. R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation

“A man may not sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another
man.” 

Law aims to protect traders from this form of unfair competition.

Legally, classifying acts under this tort aims to protect the right of property that exists in
goodwill. Goodwill is defined as the part of business value over and above the value of
identifiable business assets. So basically it is an intangible asset.

It enables a business to continue to earn a profit that is in excess of the normal or basic rate of
profit earned by other businesses of similar type. It might be due to a particularly favourable
location, reputation of the brand in the community, or the quality of its employer and
employees. The value of goodwill of a brand can be calculated by a number of methods,
like subtracting the value of all tangible assets from the total value to establish the value of
the intangible assets the amount of earnings that are in excess of those normally earned by a
similar business averaging the past five years’ net income and subtracting a reasonable
expected rate of return for tangible assets and salary requirements capitalising the resulting
value 

Goodwill can be classified into two zones, viz. institutional goodwill and professional
practice goodwill. While institutional goodwill associates itself with business houses, their
market position, professional practice goodwill, as is quite obvious from the name, associates
itself with professional practices like law, medicine, architecture, engineering and many
others.

In itself, professional practice goodwill can be divided into practitioner goodwill, where the
skill and reputation of the individual practitioner comes to play, and practice goodwill, which
is very similar to institutional goodwill and depends on the institute reputation. 
The Dutch Advocate case was the first case where the basic elements of the wrong of passing
off were put forth by Lord Fraser. They were as follows

 a misrepresentation

 made by a trader in the course of trade,

 to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied

by him,

which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this
is a reasonably foreseeable consequence) and

which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is
brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so. 

Later in the Jif Lemon case, Lord Oliver reduced these principles to three basic features (now
known as the classical trinity) which included

 reputation

 misrepresentation

 damage to goodwill 

To sum it up, the tort of passing off covers those cases where one trader falsely misrepresents
his goods as those of another trader/brand, which has a good reputation/goodwill in the
market and thus leads to damaging his goodwill.

In a passing off action, the plaintiff must prove that there is a similarity in the trade names or
marks and that the defendant is passing off his goods as those of the plaintiff’s. Remedies
could include injunction or damages or both. Damage or likelihood of damage form the core
all passing off actions. The concepts of reverse passing off and extended passing off also hold
significance.

Extended passing off consists of those cases where misrepresentation of a particular quality
of a product or services causes harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill. A famous case example
would be Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd., where the
defendant marketed a drink named “Vodkat”, which was actually not vodka, but the
marketing did not actually make it clear that it wasn’t so. The plaintiffs were the biggest
manufacturers of vodka and they filed a suit against the defendants for passing off and it was
held so.

If a defendant markets the products made by the plaintiff as the products of the defendant, the
tort committed is known as reverse passing off.

CASE STUDIES ON PASSING OFF

 Southern v. How

The earliest documented case where there was an indication of passing off, this one dates
back to 1618. In this case mark of an eminent clothing brand was used to dupe a customer,
who bought the defendant’s low grade clothing thinking it was the plaintiff’s brand.

The defendant was held liable. This though was more a case of deceit, but the principle of
passing off clearly started its journey from this case. 12

 Sangay Bhutia v. state of Sikkim13

The Division Bench comprising of Vijai Kumar Bist, CJ and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. partly
allowed an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC.

The above-stated appeal was directed against the judgment and order passed by the Court of
the Fast Track Judge, whereby the Court convicted the accused/appellant Sangay Bhutia
under Sections 376(1), 323 and 341 of the Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution story, as stated, a report was lodged by the husband (PW 2) of
the victim stating that while his wife was returning to her house from her duty, Sangay Bhutia
suddenly appeared from the back and grabbed her from behind and started assaulting her on
the head when she shouted for help. Following it, she became unconscious and when she
regained consciousness she found that the accused already ran away from the spot.
Thereafter, the victim went to her house and told the same to her husband.

Law teacher.com
12

Crl. A. No. 21 of 2018, order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Court of the Fast Track Judge,
13

South & West Sikkim at Gyalshing in Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No. 04 of 2017 
Case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and the charges against the accused were
framed under Sections 323, 341 and 376 of Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, accused/appellant
was also examined by the Court where he denied all the allegations against him.

Learned Counsel for the appellant Manita Pradhan, submitted that, the Court below has
committed grave error both on facts and law in passing the impugned judgment. Adding to
her submission, she stated that the trial judge failed to appreciate the fact that the victim
never told PW2 her husband that after she regained consciousness she found her trousers and
underwear been pulled down while she was in a state of unconsciousness.
Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the victim admitted that she cannot say for
sure if she had been raped by the appellant/accused while she was unconscious. Allegation of
her being raped is not corroborated by any evidence or witnesses and in absence of any
corroboration, suspicion of victim cannot be equated with proof and cannot form basis of
conviction.
The High Court after carefully noting the submissions of the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case concluded the matter by stating that,

“It is true that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict an accused. It is
absolutely correct that no self-respecting woman would falsely state that she had been raped.”
But, the Court is supposed to evaluate the evidence of the victim more carefully if medical
evidence does not support the commission of sexual assault on the victim. In the present case,
the victim’s statement implies that she was not sure of whether she was rape or not and
neither the evidence of her husband PW 2 mentioned the same. Medical report also does not
suggest that the victim was raped.

Therefore, the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 376(1) along with the
sentence being set aside, though the Court made it clear that it would not mean that the
prosecution case is totally false.

Thus, the charges under Sections 323 and 341 of Penal Code, 1860 were proved and the
finding of the trial court in that regard stands affirmed.14

TORT OF CONVERSION

14
Scc online
Conversion is a tort that exposes you to liability for damages in a civil lawsuit. It applies
when someone intentionally interferes with personal property belonging to another person.
The most direct and obvious way to commit conversion is by taking personal property that
belongs to someone else without permission. For example, if you take a framed photograph
from the wall of a local restaurant or a document from someone's desk, you may be held
liable for conversion, assuming you retain the property for a substantial period of time and
thereby interfere with the rightful owner's use and possession of it. It does not matter whether
you intend to publish the information, photos, or other content. However, if you remove
paperwork or photographs from someone's office or home temporarily in order to copy the
information -- intending to return the documents to the owner -- you might not be liable for
conversion because this temporary interference does not necessarily deprive the rightful
owner of the possession or use of the property. You can also commit conversion by receiving
and retaining property from someone who does not have the right to give the property away.
This issue could come up when you receive documents from sources. For example, if a bank
employee gives you checking account records for bank customers, you may both be liable for
conversion because the employee likely does not have permission from his or her employer to
turn over a customer's records. But the legal analysis is not that simple, and whether or not
you could be held liable for conversion under these circumstances depends on whether the
records you receive are originals or copies.15

For the claim of conversion, plaintiff has to establish certain elements, which are as follows: -

 First, that the plaintiff owns or has the right to possess the

personal property in question at the time of the interference;
 Second, that the defendant intentionally interfered with the
plaintiff's personal property (sometimes also described as
exercising "dominion and control" over it);
 Third, that the interference deprived the plaintiff of
possession or use of the personal property in question; and
 Fourth, that the interference caused damages to the plaintiff.

15
Digital media law
Let’s understand this by an example: -16

Your neighbour took your bike without asking and now the frame is bent. The bike isn’t
rideable in this condition and the neighbour refuses to replace it. You could file a criminal
complaint with the police, but that won’t get your bike fixed.

When you want to reclaim the value of your personal property that was damaged or altered
by some else’s unauthorized use, you can file a lawsuit for conversion. This intentional tort is
the civil law equivalent of a criminal theft charge. Conversion can occur when someone,
acting without your consent, does any of the following with your property:

 Takes and fails to return your property

 Sells your property
 Substantially changes your property, like cutting down trees to use the wood in
construction
 Severely damages or misuses your property

Damages for a conversion claim are based on a principle of fairness. If someone takes or
otherwise seriously interferes with your use or enjoyment of personal property, you should be
compensated. You are also entitled to recover costs directly associated with the loss of the
property. For example, you could recover lost wages if your neighbour damaged your bike
and you couldn’t get to work.

In setting damages, the court looks at the value of the property at the time of the conversion.
So if your neighbour damaged a $1,700 racing bike you bought five years ago, the court will
set the damages at fair market value for a used racing bike. This can be frustrating because it
may not provide enough compensation to replace the property.

State laws determine what damages are available and how damages are calculated. Some
courts allow for punitive damages or exemplary damages to punish malicious or fraudulent
behaviour.

CASE STUDIES ON CONVERSION OF TORT

16
Findlaw.com
  Richardson v. Atkinson17

In the case stated above, the defendant drew out some wine out of the plaintiff’s cask and
mixed water with the remainder to make good the deficiency. He was held liable for the
conversion of the whole cask as he had converted part of the contents by taking them away
and the remaining part by destroying their identity.

 M.S. Chokkaligam v. State of Karnataka18

In the above case the respondent, the forest department of the State Government, purchased
206 rosewood logs from the petitioner and refused to pay for the same for 9 years in spirit of
repeated demands. It was held that the conduct of the respondents in retaining the amount to
which the petitioner is entitled in spirit of demand, amount to conversion. The Karnataka
High Court directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of money equalling to
the value of 206 logs of rosewood with interest @6% from the date of delivery of logs until
payment of value, and costs of Rs. 2,000/-

 Parker v. British Airways19

In the above case stated, the defendant operated an executive lounge at Heathrow Airport to
which only the holders of first class tickets or members of the Executive club were entitled.
While in this lounge, the plaintiff found on the floor a gold bracelet which he handed over to
an official of the airline together with his name and address. When the true owner could not
be found, the defendant British Airways sold the bracelet for £850, but refused to pay to the
plaintiff. The defendant was held liable for the tort of conversion.

CONCLUSION

17
(1723) 1 str. 576.
18
A.I.R. 1991 Kant. 116.
19
(1982) 1 ALL ER 834.
The project mainly talks about the LAW OF TORT. The project also talks about the history
of torts and its basic idea and how the term TORT was derived and its literal meaning. In the
project I have mentioned about different definitions given by different scholars and different
acts which define tort. Further I have talked about the essentials of tort which define or are
used to determine that a tort has been committed. Then the project talks about the two
different types of tort i.e. TORT OF PASSING OFF and TORT OF CONVERSION. Both of
the types are explained individually along with their case studies.

1. Wrongs exclusively
criminal: Ordinarily
wrongs are either civil or
criminal. But some
wrongs are purely civil
wrongs i.e. detenon,
conversion and wrongful
dismissal. Some
wrongs are purely
criminal wrongs i.e.
decoity, murder etc.
Remedy in the case of
civil
wrongs or torts is
damages or
compensaon and the
case can be suited in
Civil court.
For crime, the remedy is
a criminal prosecuon
in a criminal court.
There are somehow
certain wrongs which
are both torts as well as
crimes i.e. assault,
defamaon,
negligence etc. A civil
suit and or a criminal
prosecuon will lie in
such cases.
2. Breach of Contract: A
breach of contract
though a civil wrong is
not a tort.
3. Breach of Trust: A
breach of trust is neither
a breach of contract nor
a tort. Trust is a
ma3er of condence
and not a ma3er of
contract or tort.
According to Salmond:
“Tort is a civil wrong
independent of
contractual or equitable
wron
Wrongs which are
not Tort:
1. Wrongs exclusively
criminal: Ordinarily
wrongs are either civil or
criminal. But some
wrongs are purely civil
wrongs i.e. detenon,
conversion and wrongful
dismissal. Some
wrongs are purely
criminal wrongs i.e.
decoity, murder etc.
Remedy in the case of
civil
wrongs or torts is
damages or
compensaon and the
case can be suited in
Civil court.
For crime, the remedy is
a criminal prosecuon
in a criminal court.
There are somehow
certain wrongs which
are both torts as well as
crimes i.e. assault,
defamaon,
negligence etc. A civil
suit and or a criminal
prosecuon will lie in
such cases.
2. Breach of Contract: A
breach of contract
though a civil wrong is
not a tort.
3. Breach of Trust: A
breach of trust is neither
a breach of contract nor
a tort. Trust is a
ma3er of condence
and not a ma3er of
contract or tort.
According to Salmond:
“Tort is a civil wrong
independent of
contractual or equitable
wron
Wrongs which are
not Tort:
1. Wrongs exclusively
criminal: Ordinarily
wrongs are either civil or
criminal. But some
wrongs are purely civil
wrongs i.e. detenon,
conversion and wrongful
dismissal. Some
wrongs are purely
criminal wrongs i.e.
decoity, murder etc.
Remedy in the case of
civil
wrongs or torts is
damages or
compensaon and the
case can be suited in
Civil court.
For crime, the remedy is
a criminal prosecuon
in a criminal court.
There are somehow
certain wrongs which
are both torts as well as
crimes i.e. assault,
defamaon,
negligence etc. A civil
suit and or a criminal
prosecuon will lie in
such cases.
2. Breach of Contract: A
breach of contract
though a civil wrong is
not a tort.
3. Breach of Trust: A
breach of trust is neither
a breach of contract nor
a tort. Trust is a
ma3er of condence
and not a ma3er of
contract or tort.
According to Salmond:
“Tort is a civil wrong
independent of
contractual or equitable