1.Tort means doing something wrong hampering individual parties.

in legal affairs a tort

happens when negligence directly damages a person or his or her property. there are different
types of torts, but all of them result in injury to a private person or property. negligence is the
most common reason for tort. when a person unintentionally harms someone then the injured
party can sue the defendant for his act. a strict liability tort become an issue if a private party is
injured through a faulty product. while CRIME is wrong doing which hampers the social order of
the society we live in.

Tort is not concerned with punishing the wrongdoer. its aim is to compensate the affected
party for the wrong done against him by the tortfeasor. on the otherhand crime is punished for
their harmful action towards the society. this punishment can either be in the form of imprison,
death, or fine.

Standard of proof, in torts the standard of proof to be used is the balance of probability
while in crime the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. however, where a
tort is also a crime, the criminal standard of proof is also what is required in the civil case.in
OKUARUME v OBABOKO (1969) NMLR 47.

In tort the purpose of awarding compensation to the injured party is to make good the loss
suffered to him but in crime the purpose of criminal law is to protect the society by preventing
and deterring the offender from committing further offences.

2. in the law of torts the breach of duty imposed by the law while in contract the breach of
agreement reached upon by both parties. there are also some situation in which a tort can be
varied due to agreement between the parties. For example, the duty owed by an occupier of a
premises to his visitors. also torts can be excluded altogether by consent. an example is in the
case of the latin maxim: violenti non fit injuria. in the case of KELLY v METROPOLITAN
RAILWAY Co (1985) 1 Q.B 944, the plaintiff sued the company for injury sustained due to the
negligence of members of its staff during the journey. The court held that in this scenario, it was
a tort even though there was contract between both parties.
 Also in the case of Jackson v Mayfair window cleaning co Ltd (1952)1 ALL ER 215, the
plaintiff contracted with the defendant to clean his house. in the course of cleaning, a chandelier
fell down and was destroyed. the plaintiff sued for damages based on negligence. the action was
based on tort and not a breach of contract.

In tort duties and obligation are imposed by the law, contract on the other hand duties and
obligation are created freely by the parties themselves. In tort the duty is fixed by the law itself
but in contract the duty is fixed by parties themselves.

Law relating to tort has not been codified. It is the judge made laws but law relating to
contract has been codifies.

A third party can sue for tort even though there was no contract between the person causing
injury and the person injured but in contract a third part to a contract cannot sue for breach of
contract except in some in some exceptional cases such as contract relating to agency or
insurance.

In action for tort no privity needed or is required to be proved, in breach of contract privity
between the parties must be proved.

3.The main distinction between the liability of tort and liability of a trust is in the origin. The
liability of tort has its origin entrenched in the common law on the other hand liability of a trust
originated from equity in the court of chancery.

Unliquidated damages are not calculated or established as a specific amount in liability of

tort while in liability of a trust liquidated damages are calculated damages that are payable for
exact amount.

Damages are not fixed because no agreement was made on the other hand damages in
liability of a trust damages are fixed because they are agreed by parties in the contract as payable
on the default of one of them.
Reference

General principle of law of torts Roggers Cletus & Khalid Kapera 2015

C.S Binamungu “law of torts in Tanzania”