I have seen increased scholarship calling into question the default rule that expectation damages be awarded for a contract default. I am more convinced this is a legitimate question (although it is certainly not the prevailing law I have seen.) A tort seems to be at least as worthy of compensation to the injured as does the innocent party in a contractual contest. Yet, in tort, you are awarded your actual damages. In contract, actual damages would be what we usually call "reliance damages." We award reliance damages when it is difficult to measure expectation damages. Why is it not the other way around? Why not, instead, award reliance damages generally and expectation damages when reliance damages are difficult to determine? Can anyone point me to the most recent literature on this debate? It is a question both old and new, and I'd like to see what is the state of the art is on it. Also, feel free to state your own opinion on the matter. Thanks.