 Instead of understanding the structure of the tort action in terms of incentives, Weinrib proposes to understand it in terms of Aristotle’s category of corrective justice. Aristotle notes that corrective justice rests on the transactional nature of wrongdoing and so imposes that transactional nature on the remedy. Corrective justice thus differs from what Aristotle calls distributive justice, which is concerned with the distribution of benefits or burdens in accordance with some external criteria, such as the distribution of food on the basis of need or of Olympic medals on the basis of athletic performance. Corrective justice is not comparative in this way. As Aristotle implies, the wrongdoer’s wrongful deed and the injured person’s suffering are a single act. If I wrongfully injure you, my wrongful act and your injury are the same thing: the wrong consists in what I did to you, and your injury consists in what you suffered by me. On Weinrib’s argument, the difficulty with economic analysis is that it undoes this unity of the wrong. Weinrib points to the ways in which the unity of the wrong structures the entire determination of liability: for each of the “elements” of a negligence action, the court only considers factors that relate the defendant to the plaintiff with respect to the particular transaction. Rather than asking whether the defendant was negligent, or imposed a higher than normal risk, the court instead asks whether the defendant was negligent-towards-the-plaintiff, that is, whether the defendant’s carelessness was careless towards the safety of the plaintiff in particular; so, too, the court asks whether the kind of thing that happened to plaintiff was the reason that the defendant was supposed to be more careful. So too, the court does not ask merely whether the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury, but rather whether the aspect of the defendant’s act that made it negligent caused the plaintiff’s injury. The inquiry looks only at what transpired between the defendant and the plaintiff: was the defendant being careful enough in relation to the risk to the plaintiff? Did the defendant owe this specific plaintiff a duty to be careful? Did the injury of which the plaintiff complains fall within the scope of the duty that the defendant owed? Did the defendant’s carelessness cause the very injury of which the plaintiff complains? Weinrib’s argument, then, is that the factors that figure in a court’s analysis of a negligence action always relate the parties to each other, while the factors to which economic analysis points all focus exclusively on one of the parties without reference to the other (1995). For economic analysis the plaintiff’s injury by the defendant serves as the occasion for regulation and so for liability but not as its basis. The missing element in economic accounts is the transaction; it alone explains why a particular plaintiff is entitled to recover from a particular defendant. The same rationale explains why there is no duty to rescue in tort law: there is no transaction between the parties. The failure of economic analysis to attend to the transaction means that it has no principled explanation of why liability is imposed only for injury but not also for failure to assist where the cost of assisting another would be lower than the cost of that person’s anticipated loss. A focus on providing incentives to reduce risks has no principled basis for limiting its purview to incentives provided to those who have created the risks themselves; the net loss in economic terms is the same whether the risk is of natural or human origin. In either case, in a perfectly competitive market without transaction costs, people would pay others to protect them, yet the law of negligence does not suppose that there is therefore a duty (Ripstein 2016).