It remains controversial as to whether damages for psychological injury can be claimed in proceedings on account of breach of contract. However, in practice, it seems that people have reached a consensus that it cannot be claimed in breach of contract cases. For example, the civil litigation branch of the Supreme People’s Court tends to hold that judges should exercise their duty of explanation to claimants requiring damages for psychological injury in breach of contract cases; where the claimants requiring damages for psychological injury insist on suing defendants on account of breach of contract, the courts are entitled to disapprove such claims.
 
However, in Alon Maor, Anat Maor v. Yunnan Dali Transportation Group, attorneys He Haojun and Xu Pengwei from Dacheng’s Kunming office argued that damages for psychological injury should still apply in breach of contract cases. Their argument was supported by the Intermediate People’s Court of Kunming, the court of last instance.
 
In June 2010, Dana Maor, an Israeli, was travelling from Dali to Liuku on a bus. Due to the driver’s carelessness, an accident took place, claiming the life of Dana Maor and inflicting injuries on a few other passengers. The police checked the scene and believed that the driver should bear full responsibility for the accident.
 
In June 2012, Dana Maor’s parents entrusted attorneys He Haojun and Xu Pengwei to represent them in the case. After careful analysis, the two found that the claimant could bring an action either on the basis of breach of contract or of tort, while the latter choice would be more beneficial for the claimant. However, as the case had exceeded the statute of limitations of tort, the claimant could only sue the Dali Transportation group on account of breach of contract, which meant that damages for psychological injury could not be recovered.
 
Having researched a large number of cases and reviewed domestic and foreign literature on whether damages for psychological injury could be claimed in breach of contract proceedings, they brought up the issue of concurrence of rights of claim: that is, when facts of a case meet both the constitutive requirements of breach of contract and that of tort, the claimant holds but one right of claim, but with two legal footings, i.e., breach of contract and tort; as to the content of claim, it is decided by integrating stipulations from both perspectives and as a result, the claim can only be enhanced rather than otherwise, i.e. the claimant is entitled to the best possible outcome for himself; therefore, damages for psychological injury should also apply in breach of contract proceedings.
 
The Intermediate People’s Court adopted their opinion and supported the claim that the defendant should pay RMB100,000 in damages for psychological injury, the largest amount ever ruled by Kunming’s courts in relation to proceedings brought from the perspective of breach of contract.
 
Admittedly, as China’s law has not yet expressly defined the issue, it is still difficult to argue for such claims. However, Dacheng’s attorneys have boldly broken away with traditional views and have made innovative endeavors in order to protect people’s psychological interests. This is in accord with the development of the law, which will show more humanity and mercy. The extension of psychological injury damages to breach of contract proceedings is, in essence, driven by the needs of mankind. Though common law and civil law jurisdictions have long acknowledged the validity of such claims, China’s legislators remain disapproving. This cannot stop individual law practitioners, including judges for this case, from seeking justice for victims. It indicates the necessity and viability of applying damages for psychological injury in breach of contract proceedings as well as the pursuit for social equity and justice.