It is understood that “non-pecuniary loss” cannot be adequately described without submitting the “pecuniary loss” for a cautious assessment. It is apparent that non-pecuniary loss commences when pecuniary damage ends. In large number of cases, the damages are largely pecuniary and the distressed party can only claim for damages even though one can claim for non-pecuniary loss in addition. It is noteworthy to denote that only on extraordinary state of affairs non-pecuniary loss may from time to time be the only reason behind the infringement and to cover the monetary loss alone it might be injustice to the aggrieved party. There are several objections against the recovery of non-pecuniary loss. One of them being is the fear to overcompensate the injured party for a violation of contract.
The court can award contractual damages for “non-pecuniary loss”, as an increasing acceptance is noticed to such an extent to which non-pecuniary damages can be awarded in those cases where a breach of contract. While a “tort plaintiff” is entitled to recover for damages and sufferings, non-pecuniary remedy is still considered as exceptional to the contracted plaintiff. The same thing happened in the case of Ruxley Electronics v Forsyt  AC, 344, HL, where contract was breached.
Under the contract law, the “Law of Tort” is the point of reference concerning “Non-pecuniary loss”. In fact, contract law is usually reluctant to compensate for non-pecuniary loss. In cases where there is a “Breach of contract” consist of tortuous aspects which occurs on regular basis when “non-pecuniary loss” is under consideration. The aggrieved party to the contract should face no problems in recovering such loss.
DiMatteo L and others, Commercial Contract Law (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2013)
Poole J, Textbook On Contract Law (Oxford University Press 2012)