Contracts, Causation, and Clarity

Authors

  • Daniel P. O'Gorman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2017.472

Abstract

Contract-law remedies start with the assumption that an injured party should be fully compensated for all losses caused by the breach. As in tort law, however, difficult issues regarding the cause of an injured party’s loss sometimes arise, including situations in which multiple factors might have caused the loss. And, like tort law, contract law is reluctant to apply the principle of full compensation when the loss was caused by multiple factors.

Multiple factors contributing to a particular loss often suggest the existence of principles competing with contract law’s goal of full compensation. For example, the law seeks to avoid unlimited liability for losses caused by the breach (particularly if the loss was a remote consequence of the breach) to encourage parties to take reasonable actions to reduce losses caused by breach, and to urge parties to disclose, during contract negotiations, any special circumstances that would cause the loss from breach to be greater than ordinarily expected. Accommodating the full- compensation principle and these competing principles is the primary function of the rules of contract damages.

Contract law furthers these principles that compete with the full-compensation principle not through a single doctrine, but through a general causation requirement plus the three limitations on an award of damages: the limitations of certainty, avoidability, and foreseeability, with each governing different aspects of causation. A problem, however, with treating causation issues under multiple doctrines is that courts and attorneys are sometimes confused about which doctrine applies, and doctrines are sometimes used in a manner that addresses a problem designed to be addressed by a different doctrine. This Article clarifies causation analysis in contract law and proposes a coherent framework for such an analysis.

Part I discusses common situations in which a causation issue arises in contract cases. Part II discusses the role each of the three limitations on contract damages plays in causation analysis. Part III proposes a coherent framework for analysis. Part IV is a brief conclusion. 


Downloads

Published

2017-05-08

How to Cite

O’Gorman, Daniel P. 2017. “Contracts, Causation, and Clarity”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 78 (3). https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2017.472.

Issue

Vol. 78 No. 3 (2017)

Section

Articles

License


Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

    2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

    3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
      1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
      2. Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
      3. No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

    4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

    5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

    6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

    7. The Author represents and warrants that:

      1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
      2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
      3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
      4. the Work has not previously been published;
      5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
      6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
         
    8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.