Editing Tort (section)

====Economic torts====
{{Main article|Economic tort|Misrepresentation}}
Economic torts{{efn|Also referred to as "business torts"}} typically involve commercial transactions, and include [[tortious interference]] with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from contractual cases involving misrepresentation in that there is no [[privity]] of contract; these torts are likely to involve [[pure economic loss]] which has been less-commonly recoverable in tort. One criterion for determining whether economic loss is recoverable is the "foreseeability" doctrine.<ref>Christie GC. (1996). [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1739&context=faculty_scholarship The Uneasy Place of Principle in Tort Law]. ''Duke Law Review''.</ref> The economic loss rule is highly confusing and inconsistently applied<ref>Barton RJ. (2000). [http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=wmlr Drowning in a Sea of Contract: Application of The Economic Loss Rule to Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims]. ''William and Mary Law Review''.</ref> and began in 1965 from a California case involving strict liability for product defects; in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the doctrine in ''East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Deleval, Inc''.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last=Andrew|first=Gray|year=2006|title=Drowning in a Sea of Confusion: Applying the Economic Loss Doctrine to Component Parts, Service Contracts, and Fraud |url = https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol84/iss6/4/ |journal=Washington University Law Review |language=en|volume=84|issue=6|issn=2166-7993}}</ref> In 2010, the [[Washington Supreme Court|supreme court of the U.S. state of Washington]] replaced the economic loss doctrine with an "independent duty doctrine".<ref>{{cite web |url = https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/013111-economic-loss-independent-duty-doctrine.html|title=Washington Supreme Court Reassesses Economic Loss Rule {{!}} Litigation News {{!}} ABA Section of Litigation |website=apps.americanbar.org |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160703164548/https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/013111-economic-loss-independent-duty-doctrine.html |archive-date=3 July 2016|access-date=25 March 2018}}</ref>

Economic antitrust torts have been somewhat submerged by modern [[competition law]]. However, in the United States, private parties are permitted in certain circumstances to sue for anticompetitive practices, including under federal or state statutes or on the basis of common law [[tortious interference]], which may be based upon the [[Restatement of Torts, Second|Restatement (Second) of Torts]] §766.<ref>Saferstein HI. (1990). [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40841303 The Ascendancy of Business Tort Claims in Antitrust Practice. ''Antitrust Law Journal''.]</ref>

Negligent misrepresentation as tort where no contractual [[privity]] exists was disallowed in England by ''[[Derry v Peek]]'' [1889]; however, this position was overturned in ''[[Hedley Byrne v Heller]]'' in 1964 so that such actions were allowed if a "special relationship" existed between the plaintiff and defendant.<ref name=Ballam/> United States courts and scholars "paid lip-service" to ''Derry''; however, scholars such as [[William Prosser (academic)|William Prosser]] argued that it was misinterpreted by English courts.<ref name=Ballam/> The case of ''[[Ultramares Corporation v. Touche]]'' (1932) limited the liability of an [[auditor]] to known identified beneficiaries of the audit and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s.<ref name=Ballam/> The [[Restatement of Torts, Second|Restatement (Second) of Torts]] expanded liability to "foreseeable" users rather than specifically identified "foreseen" users of the information, dramatically expanding liability and affecting professionals such as accountants, architects, attorneys, and [[surveying|surveyors]].<ref name=Ballam/> As of 1989, most U.S. jurisdictions follow either the ''Ultramares'' approach or the Restatement approach.<ref name=Ballam>Ballam DE. (1989). [http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1598&context=llr The Expanding Scope of the Tort of Negligent Misrepresentation]. ''Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review''.</ref>

The [[tort of deceit]] for inducement into a contract is a tort in English law, but in practice has been replaced by actions under [[Misrepresentation Act 1967]].<ref>Chen-Wishart M. (2007). [https://books.google.com/books?id=CHYo04GovjcC&pg=PA40 Contract Law]. ''Oxford University Press''.</ref> In the United States, similar torts existed but have become superseded to some degree by contract law and the pure economic loss rule.<ref name=Lens2011/> Historically (and to some degree today), fraudulent (but not negligent<ref name=Lens2011/>) misrepresentation involving damages for economic loss may be awarded under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" rule (damages identical to [[expectation damages]] in contracts<ref name=Lens2011/>) which awards the plaintiff the difference between the value represented and the actual value.<ref name=Lens2011/> Beginning with ''Stiles v. White'' (1846) in Massachusetts, this rule spread across the country as a majority rule with the "out-of-pocket damages" rule as a minority rule.<ref name=Lens2011>Lens JW. (2011). [http://www.law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v59/02-Lens_Final.pdf Honest Confusion: The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121123155733/http://www.law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v59/02-Lens_Final.pdf |date=23 November 2012 }}. ''Kansas Law Review''.</ref> Although the damages under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" are described as compensatory, the plaintiff is left better off than before the transaction.<ref name=Lens2011/> Since the economic loss rule would eliminate these benefits if applied strictly, there is an exception to allow the misrepresentation tort if not related to a contract.<ref name=Lens2011/>