Mechanisms for Restricting Recovery for Emotional Distress in Contract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the expectancy principle is widely embraced across common law jurisdictions as a foundational doctrine of remedies law, damages for mental distress related to breach of contract have either been rejected outright or limited to variously constructed exceptions in most jurisdictions. This Article focuses on the policies underlying the rules and exceptions applied to contractually related mental distress claims in England, Australia, Canada and the United States. In reviewing the approaches across these jurisdictions, there does not appear to be a convincing policy rationale behind limiting the expectancy principle for emotional distress claims. Indeed, this Article argues that the existing limitations on the availability for mental distress damages recognized in the various common law jurisdictions should be abandoned as artificial attempts to restrict liability and that the traditional common law principles of causation, mitigation and remoteness are sufficient to preclude liability in cases where such claims lack merit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".