[eiaoa]

> And most importantly, civil law is still a series of well defined laws. You can't pursue a civil case on a whim, there needs to have been some law that was broken.

Can't you sue civilly for breach of contract? I don't think many people would consider breaking a contract to be breaking the law, even though there are laws governing contracts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

[TangoTrotFox]

Only if it broke a relevant law. And each state's laws contract law tend to vary and are generally very obtuse. Here [1] for instance is California's state laws on contract. And even then you generally need to show damages, or a failure to deliver on a contractual obligation that resulted in less than promised.

[1] - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...

[derefr]

So, for a term of a contract to have force, is it necessary to have some sort of penalty in the contract for breach-of-contract, involving e.g. some required payment, so that you can then sue for failure to pay the penalty? (Which I would assume is mostly equivalent to e.g. failure to pay for goods transferred or services rendered.)

[TangoTrotFox]

No. Contracts typically do not have penalties. Civil cases are about lost value. The typical example is we agree for me to install copper piping in your house. Instead I install lead piping. Lead pipes cost $40, while copper pipes cost $60. I'd be liable for the $20 of lost value. Interestingly enough you generally could not even recoup the cost to remove and reinstall new piping. It's precisely about provable and direct lost value.