If there is no agreement between the parties in the contract on

the consequences of a breach of contract and one party (the

debtor) commits a breach of contract and the other party
(creditor) under the contract goes to court and brings a case
demanding termination of the contract due the other partys (the
debtor) breach of contract, the court (judge) will not automatically
rule for termination but rather will examine the creditor s
demand for termination and could decide any of the following:
i. The judge could refuse the plea for termination and demand the
debtor to perform its obligations in the contract, the judge may
also rule that the debtor pays compensation for any delay in
performing the obligations.
ii. The Judge could refuse the plea for termination (because the
debtor has performed a substantial part of the obligations in the
contract) and rule that the debtor is required only to compensate
the creditor for the damage sustained as a result of non-
performance of the remaining part of the contract.
iii. The judge may refuse the plea for termination and grant the
debtor some time to perform its obligations in the contract (this
usually occurs where the debtor is in default in good faith and not
intending to default). However, this remedy will not be given if it
causes excessive damage to the creditor.
iv. The judge may terminate and may also oblige the debtor to pay
compensation to the creditor.
 A breach of contract would occur were a party:

(i) does not perform its obligation (whether in its entirety or partly); or
(ii) there is delay in performance by that party; or
(iii) performance is defective.

Jurisprudence distinguishes between an Obligation to achieve a result and

an obligation to exert efforts . Take the examples below on this
distinction:

i. On achieving a Result: In a sale contract, each party has an obligations to

deliver the object matter of the contract to the other (e.g. Money v. TV), in
these circumstances each party has an obligation is to achieve a result.
Thus, non-delivery by the buyer of the money is considered a breach of
contract. Also, if the seller fails to deliver the TV it is in breach of the
contract.
ii. On Exerting Effort : a doctor does not need to achieve a result but rather his
obligation is fulfilled if he exerts appropriate efforts in achieving the result.
Thus, if he operates on a patient, he does not guarantee the outcome of the
operation and even if the patient dies during the operation, the doctor will
not be liable as long as it can be demonstrated that the doctor exerted
efforts similar to which any similar doctor would usually have exerted
should he had been operating on the patient.
 For a breach of contract to occur it is not a requirement that the breach
is attributed to the intentional conduct of the party to the contract to
bring about the breach. Rather, if there is defective performance by a
party of a contract, that party would be in breach even if the defects
were not intended. Take the example, of a transporter who reaches a
contract to deliver a merchandise to a destination, such to be safely
delivered to destination. If the merchandise reaches its destination in
time but is found defective due to (e.g. storing conditions during
transportation, a vehicle accident), the transporter will be in breach of
the contract and will be held liable to the other party regardless of his
intentions.
Also, if a party to a contract allows another person to perform an
obligations required by him, then any breach that occurs from the other
persons acts will be the responsibility of the original party. Accordingly,
if the University signs a contract with a builder to construct a building
and the builder in order to complete the construction of the building
enters into several sub-contracts with electricians, plumbers, etc. then
any delay in construction or default in the building due to the
subcontractors acts will be the responsibility of the builder. The
University could thus in such circumstances sue the builder for any
damages caused as a result of any breach under the contract of
construction even if caused by the builders subcontractors.
 Where a party commits a breach of contract (e.g. not
perform its obligations under the contract) the other party
to the contract has the right to also to demand
compensation (even if termination is not requested). This is
provided that the party claiming compensation can prove
that it has suffered damage and that the damage is related
to the breach of contract.
Accordingly, for someone to be liable for damages under a
contract, the following components should be beforehand:
i. He must be in breach of his contract.
ii. His breach resulted in the other party sustaining damage.
iii. There is a direct relationship between the breach of
contract and the damage sustained.
 In contractual liability the view is that if a party in breach is found liable to
the other for damages, then the liability would relate to direct expected
damages. Indirect damages are not covered (direct financial damage only is
covered).

Burden of proof of damage is on the creditor claiming compensation due to a

breach in performing the contract by the other party . This rule has
developed since not every breach of contract results in damage being
sustained by the other party. Take the example where a trader agrees to buy
a specific type of airplane for JD 10,000,000; payment and delivery to take
place on a specific date in the future. The failure of the seller to sell the
plane on that date in the future may not result in the buyer sustaining
damage; for, the prices of such type of plane may have fallen dramatically
on the agreed day of delivery resulting in the buyer being able to buy the
same plane from a different seller for JD 7,000,000.

To claim compensation for damage that occurred as a result of one party

breaching its contract, (i) the damage should have occurred; (ii) it should be
direct damage; and (iii) it should not be an un-expected damage.
 An obligation under a contract may cease to exist in any of
the following situation:

By Performance (parties performs their obligations).

By Consent of the Parties (the parties agree to terminate
the contract, or the parties agree that the occurrence of a
certain event will terminate the contract; in this latter
situation a notice of the occurrence of the event should be
given by a party to trigger termination)
By Court Judgment
By Law (it becomes illegal to perform, or it becomes
impossible due to exceptional reasons beyond (and are not
within) the control of the parties (Force Majeure, such as
war or an earthquake).
 The main principle in tort is that whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
(and compensate) for the damage done.

As one legal dictionary defines:

Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit.

These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a
claim by the injured party. While some torts are also crimes
punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to
provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from
committing the same harms. Among the types of damages the
injured party may recover are: actual monetary damage or loss
including loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and reasonable
medical expenses.
 Examples of tort:

I. A man digs a well in a public road (without having a license to

do so), such causing people to fall into the well. In such
circumstances the man who dag the well is liable to the people
who fell for the damage they suffered as a result of his act.
The basis of liability in this example is tort.

II. A man pushes another causing him to fall in a well. The man
who pushed the other will be liable to the other for the damages
suffered as a result of being thrown down the well. The basis of
liability in this example is tort.
 Under the civil code, a person will be liable in tort even if he had no intention to
cause damage or harm. Thus, if a person drives a car running into another person's
house, the driver will have to compensate the house owner for the damages that
resulted from that act, irrespective whether the driver had an intention to harm or
cause damage or not.
It is important to always note that in order for liability in tort to occur, the following
conditions are required:
(i) the acts performed by the individual should be a tortious conduct or wrong committed. On
this basis, if a person opens a supermarket and this act results in other supermarkets
sustaining loss, it cannot be said in these circumstances that there is tort because opening a
supermarket is permitted by law; and
(ii) There is damage caused as a result of the tortious conduct or wrong act. This is whether
such damage is Financial Damage; or 2- Physical Damage (injury); or 3- Moral damage
(affects person's reputation his mental comfort, etc.). All of the aforementioned types of
damages can be compensated for in tort.
(iii) The existence of a relationship between the tortious conduct, wrongful act and the
damage caused. It is not sufficient to have only a wrongful act and damage, there should
also be a cause relationship between the two so that a person may be held liable for his tort.
Take the following example: a person makes a car accident resulting in very minor injuries to
another person. The injured person is taken to hospital. At hospital the doctor treating the
injured person commits a gross and fatal mistake resulting in the death of the injured person.
In such circumstances, there could not be said to exist a cause relationship between the death
of the injured person and the car accident. Rather, the death is attributed to the doctors gross
mistake and not the car accident.

In addition to the above, it is important to note the concept of Abuse of rights which can be an
exception to the above. Under this concept a person may be liable for the tort even if it does not
commit a wrongful act, but rather commits a permissible act under law with the intention to harm.
The clearest example of this is when someone digs a hole in his own land with the intention of
having his neighbour falling into it when entering to his land. Or where a person opens a
supermarket and offers unreasonable discounts with the sole intention of bankrupting
neighbouring supermarkets.
 The following are some of the most important difference between contractual and tortious
liability:

i. Capacity: As seen earlier in contracts, in the usual circumstances a person has to reach the age
of (18) to conclude contracts and be obligated to perform contractual agreements. In tort,
under Jordanian law, a person is liable for his acts even if the person is a minor. Clause (256)
of the Civil Code states: Any person, even if non-discerning, shall be held accountable for
inflicting damage on others. Thus, if a minor throws a stone on a car causing damage to the
car, the owner of the car can sue the minor (and could in certain circumstances sue the person
whose responsibility is to care for the minor) for the damage inflected to the car.
ii. Amount of compensation: in contractual liability, the view is that the party in breach of his
contractual duties is liable only for direct damage that is expected at the time of contract. In
tort, it is widely accepted that the party which causes damage to another is responsible for all
damage (whether expected or not) and this may includes loss of profit which resulted from
the tortious act.
iii. Limitation of liability: in tort, a person cannot agree to dismiss his liability or limit it.
Accordingly, a factory owner cannot agree with his workers that even where the owner is
negligent in providing a safe place to work in, then he will not be liable to the workers for any
injury or damage caused to them due to this negligent act. In contractual liability, however,
some writers argue that the parties can agree to limit their liability in cases of breach of
contract. Thus, if a project owner agrees with a builder that the builder constructs a building
within (1) year. The builder and the project owner can agree in the contract that the builder
will not be liable for any delay in constructing the building. However, there are provisions in
the civil code of Jordan which suggest that limitation of liability in contracts may not be
enforceable and actual damage will be compensated for.