Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/411

A GENERAL ANALYSIS OF TORT-RELATIONS. 395 bility in general, its elements; (3) Excuse in general, the varieties. This is the fundamental proposition of which this article is in- tended to be an exposition. The unity in variety of policies and principles according to the latter grouping seems to indicate it as the fruitful one, — from the point of view of the jurist at least, though at present not so clearly from that of the index-maker or the practitioner. A few words in conclusion. 1. It will be seen that the writer does not believe in that theory of Tort-right which makes it merely a right to recover compensa- tion for a harm done. The theory here accepted is that of a right to have certain harmful results not produced; and, though the remedy (or means of realization of the right) is usually compensa- tion and not specific prevention, that is a matter of remedial law and policy, and does not touch the nature of the substantive right- and-duty. • 2. "False Representations" has not been made a title in the preceding exposition because the writer believes, with others, that it is, like some parts of Estoppel, akin in essence to the general subject of Undertakings (including contracts). 3. The writer expresses no opinion as to whether it is possible or desirable to follow the above order of topics 'in conducting in- struction in Torts. 4. The effort has been in reaching the above results to proceed inductively. The writer will be glad to receive word of instances which seem not to harmonize with the analysis here set forth. The revision and correction of inductive results must always be neces- sary where there have been errors of analysis or omissions of signi- ficant instances, and it cannot be hoped that the above exposition is not subject to correction. Johtt H. Wigmore. Northwestern University Law School, Chicago.