Research On The Scope Of Damages For Breach Of Contract

Compensation for breach of contract is the most frequently used form of defaultliability and it is also important to maintain transaction security and to facilitatetrading. While the delimitation of damages for breach of contract is the key point forcompensation for breach of contract. In judicial practice, we must make clear whichdamages should be compensated and know the amount of compensation for losses. Infact, the delimitation of damages for breach of contract is a process with the damagessuffered as a starting point which filtering something by reasonable evaluation system.The constitutive elements of the establishment of liability should be recognized. Thecomponents are not enough to bear all responsibility, so some special rules arenecessary.This article made a study in four sections and put forward the proposals for thedamages for breach of contract in our country.In part1, the paper points out the basic issues on the scope of damages forbreach of contract. Compensation which is different from the criminal liability ismostly focused on filling the harm. In my opinion, the theory just take cognizance ofa particular aspect of the contract is off the mark and the purpose of the contractshould be multiple. The paper argues that compensation for breach of contract isaimed at compensating the losses of the victim. But the compensation is actuallyadjusted.Part2concerns damages. We admit that not all damage suffered should be paidand they are not exactly the same. The paper tries to make a thorough inquiry of thedefinition and categories of damage. It is the need of the delimitation of damages forbreach of contract. In our country, both property damage and mental damage shouldbe paid. In judicial practice, if the expectant interest cannot be proved or determined,the reliance interest is placed high hopes on.Part3issues on the basic analytical instrument to establish the scope of damagesfor breach of contract—the bifurcated approach to problems of causation. Causes arestated in two parts, cause in fact and cause in law. Both parts should be used in theprocess of establishing the scope of damages. If it just be defined by the cause in fact,it will be enlarged and uncertainty. Therefore, it is necessary to use cause in law to restrict. For cause in law, we have two options. With comparing the rule of adequatecause relationship and the rule of foreseeability, the author believes that there is nogood or bad between them, we just need to technically perfect it. Next, the paperdiscusses the Rule of Foreseeability and gives the proposal.In part4, the paper also gives a brief introduction of other means. Thecomponents are not enough to bear all responsibility, so some special rules arenecessary. The Rule of Mitigating the damage is not the instrument to encourage thedefault, while the Rule of Contributory Negligence and the Rule of Counterbalancebetween Loss and Profit also should be written in the law.