Those remedies are against the parties breaching the contract. It’s a small hair to split, but relevant given the point being made.
contract law is the body of precedent and collective set of laws related to the legality, construction, execution and all around use of contracts, and while I’m sure there are some specific extra laws that make breach of certain types of contracts a misdemeanour or felony. Generally speaking in most jurisdictions around the world in fact, breach of contract is a civil law matter between the parties of the contract, and settlement of the civil law side of the “is this actually a breach of contract” is usually necessary first before any potential criminal liability can be applied.
An example: An contract can be invalidated for lack of sufficient consideration offered (peppercorn isn’t always enough to make it valid)… this makes the contract void, not illegal. This is a simple example but it illustrates the basic point well, and I’m not trying to write a legal theory essay while on the way to work.
> Those remedies are against the parties breaching the contract.
Yes, remedies in the law are invariably against the party breaking the law, not the people complying with the law. What would be the point of sanctions for not breaking the law?
> while I’m sure there are some specific extra laws that make breach of certain types of contracts a misdemeanour or felony. Generally speaking in most jurisdictions around the world in fact, breach of contract is a civil law matter between the parties of the contract
So, what I just said that breach of contract is a violation of the law for which there are sanctions available, but not in and of itself criminal. That was a…very argumentative agreement.
Well so it is… I misunderstood your viewpoint since it was put so succinctly. With the added context of your reply, I see what you meant and yeah… I was quite argumentative in my agreement, fortunately it was an argument for the same view and you decided to kindly reply and point it out. :-)
"contracts" is civil law. to be illegal it would have to be criminal law. defamation is legal. it's a tort, you can get sued for it and lose. in civil court.
there is contract law, but breaking contract law is not illegal. a tort for example, is a tort, not a crime.
I am sorry to have to say this, as it detracts from discussion. you really need to read the full text of things to which you are replying, before replying. you are wrong, and your exact point was already explained. yes - criminal law is the only source of illegality. that is literally the definition of the word.
I give up. Enjoy doubling down Pooty, and take your own advice. Look up what a crime is (this is illegal) and look up what a tort is. There is a reason we have civil and criminal courts.
Torts are just as illegal as crimes. (And of course, in most usage, torts are just a particular subtype of crimes.) If torts weren't illegal, there'd be no justification for fining you after you committed a tort.
> all the discussion I can find online say breaking a contract doesn't fall under the definition of "illegal"
I don't think this is the standard. I think the standard is, can you find definitions of illegal under which breaking a contract or a tort don't fall? And in the dictionaries I've looked in, there are many usage senses of the word illegal that do cover things that are not criminal.
Contract law and the law of torts are laws under which the state will enforce judgements. Even though the judgements are civil matters, they are enforced by the legal system. Till I see a definition of legal/illegal that clearly covers only criminal acts, I'm going with breaking contracts to be within the penumbra of that which is illegal.
just a few more points to round out my thinking
I think what we're seeing is that there is a clear distinction between criminal and civil law. And lawyers, wanting to be clear and unambiguous, shy away from blurring that distinction by applying the term illegal to civil matters; but lawyers being hyper-specific and unambiguous doesn't necessarily govern the definitions of words.
And I once took an introductory/survey course in the law (taught by an attorney/law professor), and the first day of the course we talked about the history of the law, and what were the sources of our laws, for example religious law (thou shalt not kill), feudal law, common law, (for the US) federal law, state law, town ordinances, and then contracts were mentioned as binding just like law.
> And in the dictionaries I've looked in, there are many usage senses of the word illegal that do cover things that are not criminal.
That wasn't the question under discussion -- my comment already had an example of that, of driving over the speed limit.
The question is whether breaking a contract falls under the term "illegal". And again, you're using logic to argue this, when it's simply a question of definition. It's not whether it should fall under the term "illegal", it's whether lawyers and lawmakers and other educated folks define the term that way.
And it doesn't seem like they do. It seems that someone is not acting "illegally" when they break a contract. They can be sued, the contract can be binding, but the word we use for the behavior is "breaching" or "violating", not "illegal".
>And all the discussion I can find online say breaking a contract doesn't fall under the definition of "illegal".
IIUC, breaking a contract is a civil tort[0]:
A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and
amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of
torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm"
describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.1
And torts (again, IIUC) are not the breaking of a legal code, and as such cannot be illegal, as they break no laws.
Something illegal is dealt with in a criminal court (yes, there are administrative courts in various places that handle minor infractions, but those are governed under the relevant legal code and are adjudicated as such.
Civil torts are not contained within any legal code, and as such cannot be illegal. That said, there are some harms that may also rise to the level of criminality (e.g., fraud), which may also have a civil tort associated with them.
But breach of contract by itself is just breaking the rules[1] agreed upon by the parties to a contract.
> And torts (again, IIUC) are not the breaking of a legal code
Torts are (in the US, other jurisdictions may differ) either statutory torts, which break a particular, legislatively adopted code, or breaches of the common law and, as such, illegal just as crimes under the common law are in those jurisdictions which (unlike the federal system) continue to recognize common law crimes.
Both are illegal.
Though this is also somewhat tangential since as well as being wrong about the nature of torts such that your “torts are not illegal” argument is founded on faulty assumptions, you are also wrong in that, while contracts are, like torts, civil, breach of contract is not a tort.
> Something illegal is dealt with in a criminal court
No, something criminal is dealt with in criminal court. Illegal is a superset of criminal.
> Civil torts are not contained within any legal code
The United States Code has 54 “titles”. Crimes and criminal procedure are Title 18. What do you think most violations of the other 53 titles are? Largely (but not entirely) statutory torts.
Similarly, what do you think most violations of the 28 California Codes that aren’t the Penal Code are? Especially the Civil Code? Again largely, but not entirely, torts (the Commercial Code, relevant to this conversation, also significantly deals with contracts.)
> But breach of contract by itself is just breaking the rules agreed upon by the parties to a contract.
Breach of contract — the thing actionable in court — is breaking the rules in law as to when compliance with rules agreed to between parties are compulsory. That’s what makes it actionable.
Actually no, because contracts are enforceable as long as they don't go against the law, there's a limitation for a contract and contracts cannot be penally prosecuted
contract law is the body of precedent and collective set of laws related to the legality, construction, execution and all around use of contracts, and while I’m sure there are some specific extra laws that make breach of certain types of contracts a misdemeanour or felony. Generally speaking in most jurisdictions around the world in fact, breach of contract is a civil law matter between the parties of the contract, and settlement of the civil law side of the “is this actually a breach of contract” is usually necessary first before any potential criminal liability can be applied.
An example: An contract can be invalidated for lack of sufficient consideration offered (peppercorn isn’t always enough to make it valid)… this makes the contract void, not illegal. This is a simple example but it illustrates the basic point well, and I’m not trying to write a legal theory essay while on the way to work.