Saeed Haghani; Marzieh Hakimi Rad
Abstract
while illustrating and critically studying a valuable court judgment on the Lex Contractus, we try to show how Iranian courts are unfamiliar with conflict-of-law methodology. In the judgment issued by 18th chamber of Tehran Appeal Court on November 30, 2017, the Court considers the case to be governed ...
Read More
while illustrating and critically studying a valuable court judgment on the Lex Contractus, we try to show how Iranian courts are unfamiliar with conflict-of-law methodology. In the judgment issued by 18th chamber of Tehran Appeal Court on November 30, 2017, the Court considers the case to be governed by Article 980 of Iranian Civil Code, a the general rule relating to Lex Contractus. Based on the finding that the contract was concluded in Germany and given the fact that German BGB recognizes a 3 years prescription for contractual allegations, the Court dismissed the case. We endeavor, throughout aforesaid final judgment, to illustrate how conflict-rule-based mindset may work in a judicial process. In this regard, this we analyze the judgment into its very constituting element to illustrate the mistake committed by the Appeal Court. Although in this case the court has rightfully entered into conflict of law's wonderland, it failed to consider and apply renvoi provision. It is noteworthy that a proper application of renvoi in the said case would lead to the application of Iranian law to the merits. Undoubtedly such governance of Iranian law would be detrimental to Iranian defendant in the case.
