Spirit Of Breach Of Contract Damages

The mental damage compensation system has been already established in our country, but it was generally discussed in torts law while it is still controcersial whether or not it should be admitted into cases of contract breach. That means whether the contract-abiding party of the contract has the right to ask the opposite party for the mental damage compensation.The denial standpoint occupies the mainstream status. This viewpoint believes, once breach of obligation resulted in mental damage,contract-abiding party can only appeals to the theory of coincidental liability, by tort suit to obtain compensation.and compensation for mental distress in beach of contract has violated the rule of forseeability, therefore, such system should not been established.Regarding this, the author holds the different viewpoint.The author believed that, it is insufficient to compensate the damage through coincidental liability. In fact, the the theory of coincidental liability is only suitable in injuring pays, but in many times, the theory has the awkwardness that it cannot compensate the contract-abiding party completely . Attentively,there has the right leaving behind the blank in the situation of the traveling contracts serving contracts(the service operator violates the general safekeeping of security duty), the post contract (the mail delaying which caused the looses of opportunity) as well as the marriage serving contract. In the above contract, the contract-abiding party cannot obtain the compensation for there mental distress through tort law because of no coincidental liability.This is extremely disadvantageous for the victim benefit protection, and does not accord the tendency of expanding the protection of humen mental right.In addition, the author believes, the rule of forseeability cannot become the barrier of the system of compensation for mental distress in breach of contract . When the contract concerns litigant's personal safety or the contract takes the spirit as the goal, contract-breaking party might foresee the spiritual harm which will bring to the opposite party. Therefore, accepting the compensation for mental distress in breach of contract conditionally does not break the the rule of forseeability .Moreover,in overseas, main country of the British and American legal system and the mainland legal system, successively admitted compensation for mental distress in breach of contract by the legal precedent or the legislation way, acknowledged the compensation for mental distress in breach of contract system under e certain conditionBased on the above,the author believes that, the compensation for mental distress in breach of contract system should be found in our country . The author advocates to explain the related provision of ((General provisions of the civil lawK ((contract Law)) enlargely, as the basic pleading right of compensation for mental distress in breach of contract.At the same time,to define the applicable scope:making the discrimination with commercial contract and the non- commercial contract ^ summarizing unceasingly in the practice the contract type which is suitable for the system > constructing the constitution of the system. Meanwhile, we should consummate responsibility to share the burden of the contract-breaking party by expanding professional liability insurance content. In that way,we can found the system of compensation for mental distress in breach of contract well in our country.