Comparison between Contractual Obligation and Legal Obligation The illicit obligation arises from a choice, for example, one makes the choice to start a construction and from this arises the obligation to provide due diligence and not destroy the property of others. On the other hand, contractual obligation is itself a choice that is applied after acceptance of the contract. The consequences deriving from the violation of obligations deriving from illicit acts and from contractual obligations are different. The purpose of contract law is to enforce the contract and compensate for the damage caused by the breach. In illicit acts the tortfeasor is required to compensate the damage he has caused to the injured person. In Erlich v. Menezes, 981 P.2d 978 (Cal. 1999), it was decided that: “The distinction between tort and contract is well established in the common law and divergent objectives underlie the remedies created in the two areas. While contract actions are created to enforce the intentions of the parties to the agreement, tort law is primarily designed to vindicate social policy.” In Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 869 P.2d 454 (Cal. 1994), it was