Why was the adjective &quot;special&quot; embraced for &quot;special damages&quot;?
<p>Source: <a href="http://emond.ca/a-brief-introduction-to-law-in-canada.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>A Brief Introduction to Law in Canada</em></a> (Mar. 2017). p. 173 Middle.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As in tort law, the most important remedy in contract law is damages. Contract damages 
  classified differently, though. three main categories in contract law are: (1) expect- 
  damages, (2) reliance damages, and (3) restitution damages. Punitive damages may also be available, but only in usual cases.<br>
    <strong>Expectation damages</strong> attempt to place the innocent party in the position she would have 
  been in if the contract had been performed as promised and all the contractual representa-tions were true. This method of assessing damages is the standard method used to calculate 
  damages in contract disputes. Expectation damages typically claimed include out-of-pocket 
  expenses to correct defective performance (for example, where construction work is shoddy 
  and has to be fixed) and loss of profits (for example, where a commodity was not delivered 
  and the purchaser was unable to resell for a profit as planned).<br>
    Expectation damages sometimes have alternate names depending on what they represent 
  or how they are calculated. For instance, out-of-pocket expenses can also be called <strong><em>special 
  damages</em></strong> because they have already been incurred and are certain. The term <strong><em>general damages</em></strong> 
  can be used to describe the value of a lost expectation that is not specifically quantifiable, 
  such as the enjoyment the plaintiff hoped to experience on a vacation (where a vacation 
  planner failed to deliver as promised). <strong><em>Liquidated damages</em></strong>, which are another type of ex-pectation claim, refer to damages that the parties have calculated in advance. They can only 
  be claimed, however, where the parties have put a clause in the contract setting out what the 
  damages are to be, and where the amount represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss ex-pected to be suffered in the event of breach. Liquidated damages clauses can save the par-ties the trouble of arguing about what the damages are if the contract is broken. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The use of "special" for "special damages" appears outlandish and unfit to me. What exactly is special about such damages, when they are predictable and calculable? </p>

<p>This is sense A. 1b of ‘special’ in the Oxford English Dictionary:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Designating a thing: <strong>specific</strong>, individual or particular to the specified person, thing or set. Now <em>rare</em> (in later use tending to merge with or be understood as sense A. 4a).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Special damages are those that can be <strong>specified</strong> by reference to particular expenses. They are not exceptional or unusual. As noted in the OED, ‘special’ is rarely used in this sense today; modern English users would be more likely to say ‘specific.’ However, the special/general distinction is still used in terms like ‘special/general counsel’ and ‘special/general relativity.’</p>

contract-law legal-terms