On The Breach Of Contract Compensation For Moral Damage

The traditional civil law theory insists that the liability for breach of contract is a kind of property responsibility and its function is compensation. So the compensation for moral damage with punishment should not be included in it, but only be limited to the realm of tort law. According to this kind of theory, the academia of our country has made a clew distinction between the liability for breach of contract and liability for tort. On the basis of this division, compensation for moral damage in breach of contract can only be claimed in the realm of tort law. This dissertation queries to this view and thinks on that it is an objective reality that the spirit in some contracts is damaged by breach of contract and can be predicted too, it is insufficient to compensate the damage through coincidental liability. So the compensation for moral damage should be included in the liability for breach of contract. We should build a general principle that compensation for breach of contract is allowed. But, in order to prevent the protection of spirit benefit being ad infinitum enlarged and the compensation from being abused, we should strictly control the application of the compensation for moral damage in breach of contract by law.This dissertation consists of six parts apart from preface and epilogue.Part one puts forward the question of Compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. The author first clarifies the concept of "moral damage" both in connotation and in extension, then analyses the similar functions of the compensation for moral damage and the breach of contract, and introduces the concept and characteristics of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract.Part two introduces the different attitudes towards compensation for moral damage in breach of contract in different countries. The author observes the situation in England, America, France, Germany and Taiwan, finding a common trend between two legal systems: the Continental legal system breaks the limits that moral damage could be recoverable only in the tort law; the Anglo-American law system classifies the compensation for moral damage resulted from breaching of contract through cases. Some international legal documents even stipulate it as a rule.Part three criticizes some scholars' views about the compensation for moral damage in breach of contract and carries ori analysis to them. On the topic, the academia of our country has opposite views. The opponents deny it from many aspects, including unpredictability, trade barriers, difficulty of assessment, abuse of discretion right of judges, consideration of contract and coincidental liability. The author points out the soundness of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract by means of refuting all of these viewpoints.Part four proves the reasonableness of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. It's necessary and feasible from principles of human rights, justice, expansion of contractual obligation and the complete compensation in contract law.Part five emphasizes the limits to the compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. First, it must conform to the common rules of compensation in breach of contract, including Act of God, predictability and stipulated limits in contract. Second, the number of compensation should not be very large. The commercial contract and artificial person are unapproachable. Finally, we must consider the principle of final remedy. The limits also applies to the stipulated compensation for moral damage.Part six tries to classify the cases of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. The author combines the case law in England with judicial practice in our country, points out the cases mainly lie on the contract targeting at spiritual interests, the contract playing an import role in someone's life and occupation and the contract breach of which leads to physical uncomfort and inconvenience in life.The epilogue goes deeper into system design to the compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. The author emphasizes the system could apply to limited contracts, and we should establish a general principle that the compensation is allowed conditionally. At present, "loss" can be interpreted to include "property loss" and "moral damage". In the situation of coincidental liability, the litigant has the right of claim. Only in this way, could the spiritual interests of the litigant be protected completely.