When Kevin breached his contract with phoebe (see Question 3)( Question 3 says: Which statement below best explain why, under a negligence analysis, the bank's negligence would not be too remote a cause of Ming"s Harm) , he committed a civil wrong. Torts are civil wrong. But Kevin did not commit a tort. It would be simpler for the law to classify breach of contract as a torts. Why would such a classification be a mistake? Explain clearly what it is that makes the law of contract distinct from the law of torts.