Johnny D. makes the
distinction between contracts and torts.
We award punitive damages in torts because we want to punish and in turn
deter actions that society considers “highly offensive”.
There are arguments for and
against punitive damages.
·
The
argument in favor of these damages is that prosecutors don’t have the time to
punish everyone that should be punished, and when they do, the victim doesn’t
usually get restitution. If private
parties sue for torts to collect punitive damages, they will get reimbursed for
their losses while at the same time deterring others from committing the same
tort.
·
The
argument against punitive damages says that defendants in torts don’t have the
same protections as criminal defendants even though they are being accused of
similar wrongs. They also say that
juries can go hog wild in awarding damages and judges have no rational basis
for deciding when to control them.
The question follows: is it
appropriate to award punitive damages for breach of contract? J.D. will argue that it’s not.
Punitive damages are only
available in especially bad torts. Even
if a contract is breached in an especially nasty way, there is usually an
independent tort for which you can sue and get punitive damages.