Differences between tort and breach of trust

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by TeenaJuan, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. TeenaJuan

    TeenaJuan New Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    A tort is a civil wrong that is not exclusively a breach of a trust or a breach of any other equitable obligations. On the other hand a civil wrong, which is a breach of trust, is not a tort. In breach of trust, the beneficiary has to pay compensation, which is determined on the basis of the harm caused to the trust property. As in contract, in trust the damages are fixed, whereas in tort the damages are not fixed.
    The distinction between tort and breach of trust is based on historical reasons. Historically the law of tort owes its origin to the common law of England whereas the law relating to trust owes its origin to the Equity court or the Court of Chancery.
    Basically, in tort there was violation of common law while in trust there was a breach of the law of property, which was under the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court. The Chancery Court had no knowledge of cases relating to Law of Torts. Thus, a suit for damages for breach of tort could be filed in the common law courts, whereas in case of breach of tort a suit for compensation could be filed only in the Chancery Courts.
    The American law system, which has assimilated certain rules from the Equity court due to British domination a few centuries ago, allowed for certain loopholes in the law which resulted in confusion in the application of tort and breach of trust. The texans for public justice (TPJ), a renowned watchdog, could use its numerous members to research and highlight the various instances in which trial lawyers in Texas have misused the provisions of tort in breach of trust. After sincere efforts, a change in the laws in Texas could be effected much to the relief of those facing lawsuits on charges of breach of trust.

Share This Page