Abstract
This article provides a theoretical and doctrinal explanation of how the but-for test links gains to the wrong that produced them. Gain-based damages cases focus on the gain resulting from the defendant's tortious behaviour. In these cases, the contrastive aspect of the but-for test, requiring the factfinder to consider the hypothetical result that would have occurred had the right thing happened instead of the defendant's wrongdoing, is not confined to the question of reasonability, as it is in negligence cases. Rather, in gain-based damages cases, the factfinder faces the open-ended normative task of determining the hypothetically appropriate scenario that contrasts with the wrongdoing that happened in reality. For this reason, in gain-based damages cases, the normative sensitivity of the but-for test is revealed in full. The article explains how this sensitivity influences the result of the but-for test expressing the amount of gain causally attributed to the defendant's wrongdoing.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 365-383 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 28 Aug 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2022 The Author(s).
Funding
For helpful comments on various versions of this article, I would like to thank Steve Bero, Natalie Davidson, Christopher Essert, Ariel Porat, Arthur Ripstein, Henry Smith, Lionel Smith, Robert Stevens, Ernest Weinrib, and the participants of the 2018 Legal Philosophy Workshop, the Canadian Private Law Workshop, and the Place of Restitution in the Modern Law Workshop.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Ernest Weinrib |