Contract-law remedies start with the assumption that an injured party should be fully compensated for all losses caused by the breach. As in tort law, however, difficult issues regarding the cause of an injured party’s loss sometimes arise, including situations in which multiple factors might have caused the loss. And, like tort law, contract law is reluctant to apply the principle of full compensation when the loss was caused by multiple factors. Multiple factors contributing to a particular loss often suggest the existence of principles competing with contract law’s goal of full compensation. For example, the law seeks to avoid unlimited liability for losses caused by the breach (particularly if the loss was a remote consequence of the breach) to encourage parties to take reasonable actions to reduce losses caused by breach, and to urge parties to disclose, during contract negotiations, any special circumstances that would cause the loss from breach to be greater than ordinarily expected. Accommodating the full- compensation principle and these competing principles is the primary function of the rules of contract damages. Contract law furthers these principles that compete with the full-compensation principle not through a single doctrine, but through a general causation requirement plus the three limitations on an award of damages: the limitations of certainty, avoidability, and foreseeability, with each governing different aspects of causation. A problem, however, with treating causation issues under multiple doctrines is that courts and attorneys are sometimes confused about which doctrine applies, and doctrines are sometimes used in a manner that addresses a problem designed to be addressed by a different doctrine. This Article clarifies causation analysis in contract law and proposes a coherent framework for such an analysis. Part I discusses common situations in which a causation issue arises in contract cases. Part II discusses the role each of the three limitations on contract damages plays in causation analysis. Part III proposes a coherent framework for analysis. Part IV is a brief conclusion.

中文翻译：

---

契约、因果关系和明确性

合同法的救济始于这样一种假设，即受害方应就违约造成的所有损失获得全额赔偿。然而，与侵权法一样，有时会出现有关受害方损失原因的难题，包括多种因素可能导致损失的情况。并且，与侵权法一样，合同法在损失由多种因素造成的情况下不愿意适用全额赔偿原则。导致特定损失的多种因素通常表明存在与合同法的全额赔偿目标相冲突的原则。例如，法律寻求避免对违约造成的损失承担无限责任（特别是如果损失是违约的遥远后果），以鼓励当事人采取合理的行动减少违约造成的损失，并敦促当事人在合同谈判中披露任何可能导致违约损失大于通常预期的特殊情况。适应全额赔偿原则和这些相互竞争的原则是合同损害赔偿规则的主要功能。合同法不是通过单一的原则，而是通过一般的因果关系要求加上对损害赔偿的三个限制：确定性限制、可避免性限制和可预见性限制，来促进这些与全额赔偿原则相竞争的原则，每个限制都管辖不同的方面因果关系。然而，在多个原则下处理因果关系问题的一个问题是，法院和律师有时会混淆适用哪个原则，学说有时以解决旨在由不同学说解决的问题的方式使用。本条阐明了合同法中的因果关系分析，并为这种分析提出了一个连贯的框架。第一部分讨论了合同案件中出现因果关系问题的常见情况。第二部分讨论了合同损害赔偿的三个限制中的每一个在因果关系分析中的作用。第三部分提出了一个连贯的分析框架。第四部分是一个简短的结论。第二部分讨论了合同损害赔偿的三个限制中的每一个在因果关系分析中的作用。第三部分提出了一个连贯的分析框架。第四部分是一个简短的结论。第二部分讨论了合同损害赔偿的三个限制中的每一个在因果关系分析中的作用。第三部分提出了一个连贯的分析框架。第四部分是一个简短的结论。