Compensation For Non-pecuniary Loss In Breach Of Contract

This article includes five chapters besides preface and conclusion.The first chapter indicates the problem. The author draws three conclusions from the analysis of some typical cases relating to the compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract: first is that non-pecuniary loss is more and more universal in breach of contract; the second is that, due to the lack of definite provisions in our law, the judges have showed much power in deciding such cases; the third is that our jurisdiction has become more and more agreeable to the compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract.The second chapter gives us an overview of non-pecuniary loss. First, through the analysis of some basic concepts, such as pecuniary loss, non-pecuniary loss and mental loss, the author has ascertain that non-pecuniary loss is not equal to mental loss and the former includes the latter; then the author clarifies the scope of the non-pecuniary loss discussed by this article after finding that not all non-pecuniary loss is under the remedy of law.The third chapter reviews the comparative law on compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract. In this part, the author makes a study on the legal history and status quo, including civil law system, common law system and international practice. Their attitudes are from denial to approve, and it has become the trend of modern legislation to allow the non-pecuniary loss in some special contracts. In constructing our own non-pecuniary loss compensation system in breach of contract, these studies have many reference meanings.The fourth chapter analyzes the legal theory on compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract. Above all, through analyzing the relations between non-pecuniary loss and liability for breach of contract, the author proves that non-pecuniary loss should be allowed in the contract lawsuit because the non-pecuniary loss induced by breach of special contracts meets the prediction rule; Then, the author proves that the theory of coincidental liability in our existing law could not resolve all problems relating to the remedy of non-pecuniary in breach of contract. Finally, the author particularizes the opposite opinions of awarding compensation for non-pecuniary loss induced by breach of contract and criticizes them one by one. In conclusion, we should adopt the compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract law.The fifth chapter talks about the suggestion of constructing the compensation system of non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract in China. First, the author introduces the status quo of our legislation; then, analyzes the applicable conditions and restrictions of the compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract in detail; finally, the author points out that the legislation model of combination of summarizing and listing and the way of judicial explanation is better for our system constructing.The last part is the conclusion. The author concludes that compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not belong to the field of tort law as a tradition permanently. As regards to compensation for non-pecuniary loss in breach of contract, there are not only theory basis but also legislation precedents. We should improve the existing system conforming to the historical trend of legislation development.