bring an action before the courts.

These were known as the forms of actions, the writs that it was
necessary to purchase from chancery so that an action could be commenced on an ad-hoc basis, but
soon it became impractical and standard form writs began to develop. Although this form of action
were abolished by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, an understanding of nuances applied while
awarding various remedies under various tort cases would be impossible without an appreciation of the
writ system and of the most goes to the writ of trespassthat fertile mother of actions, to use
Maitlands words- from which developed the more flexible writ of trespass on the plaintiffs special
case.
a) The writ of trespass- the writ of trespass was one of the original royal issued in the Crowns
name. It became relatively common after 1250. The mode of trial was jury and the primary
type of remedies awarded to plaintiffs was damages.
b) Trespass on the case- this writ required the plaintiff to plead his special case. In earliest
form of this writ involved situations in which parties were already in relationship.
Historically, it is commonly said that the civil action for damages aims at compensation, as opposed
to the criminal prosecution which aims at punishment. There are four possible bases of the action
for damages in tort: Appeasement, Justice, Deterrence and Compensation.

Appeasement- the object of early law was to prevent the disruption of society by disputes
arising from the infliction of injury. The victims vengeance is bought off by the
compensation which gives him satisfaction in two ways: he is comforted to receive the

money himself and he is pleased that the aggressor is discomfited by being made to pay.
Justice- with the growth of moral ideas it came to be thought that one who by his fault has
caused damage to another ought as a matter of justice to make compensation.

Deterrence- the action in a tort is a judicial