I like to consider the Trust System and Flag addition as a system aimed at evaluating and protecting fraud on commerce (/scam) related aspects. As such, this kind of falls in line with the bolded part here:
<…> As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.<…>
The bolded text was bolded in the original quoted post, but shows a line of intent, and has scamming as its centrepiece.
Normally scamming would be related to money:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scam an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scamA scam is an illegal trick, usually with the purpose of getting money from people or avoiding paying tax.
I would therefore relate contract flags to financial loses.