What is the relevance of fault in tort and contract?

law, liability
Answer:
An example might assist the explanation.
A common tort is negligence. EG: your employer allows you to work at a machine which is defective and dangerous and you are injured. The employer's fault (in permitting the machine to be used when it was unsafe) is an essential ingredient in the tort and the tort cannot be established without the fault.
Fault may mean blameworthiness, but it is not always necessary to establish that the tortfeasor (the person who commits the tort) knew he was doing or not doing something blameworthy.
Fault in contract is much rarer (almost unheard of), and almost wholly unnecessary.
For example: If you agree to buy a car, and put down a deposit. On the way to pay the balance, you are mugged, all your money stolen and are in hospital for six months during which time your house is reposessed and your wife leaves you.
No-one could say it is your 'fault' that you did not complete the transaction nor would anyone blame you.
But you are in breach of contract and the failure to complete the contract means you are liable to pay the seller damages for breach. the 'fault' if there is one - is the failure to abide by the terms of the contract.
So - in short - in tort, fault is very relevant, generally an essential ingredient: in contract, the exact opposite.

---

Tort is French for wrong. A tort claim is when you are finding a fault or wrong doing. Violating a contractual agreement by not following the intended action the contract was intended to have is not a tort.

tort (t么rt)
n. Law.
Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.