Ebrahim Shoarian Sattari; Roya Shirin Beigpour
Abstract
A breach of an obligation is the requirement for imposing a contractual liability in all legal systems. Such a breach could be dealt with by a series of remedies such as specific performance, termination of the contract and claim for damages. These remedies could be relied upon concurrently as far as ...
Read More
A breach of an obligation is the requirement for imposing a contractual liability in all legal systems. Such a breach could be dealt with by a series of remedies such as specific performance, termination of the contract and claim for damages. These remedies could be relied upon concurrently as far as they are cumulative in nature. Nevertheless, in some circumstances the adequacy of these remedies is in doubt to address such breaches and bad faith. In order to deal with such situations, some international instruments such as UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC), the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and also the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) have established some specific rules and imposed different and greater liability for breaching contractual obligations or bad faith in order to support the other party and have a deterrent role. In other words, the aggrieved party is not limited to anticipated damages, or in some cases it is possible to demand punitive damages. This article, through a comparative analysis, attempts to examine whether the same rules could apply under Iranian law or not.
Ebrahim Shoarian; Yousef Molayi
Volume 1, Issue 3 , March 2013, , Pages 35-64
Abstract
The rule of “Mitigation of Damages” is among the pivotal principlesprevailing the reparation process, based on which the injured party bears anobligation to take any reasonable course of action to minimize damagesbeing incurred and to avoid their expansions ; otherwise, he may not befound ...
Read More
The rule of “Mitigation of Damages” is among the pivotal principlesprevailing the reparation process, based on which the injured party bears anobligation to take any reasonable course of action to minimize damagesbeing incurred and to avoid their expansions ; otherwise, he may not befound entitled to a full compensation. Even though, the principle is onlymoderately addressed, besides Islamic jurisprudence by some local laws andregulations, no independent research has yet been conducted on the subject.The article shall note that such duty of the injured party is not strictlyunlimited , meaning that for it to arise, certain conditions must genuinelyexist .Further ,there may be objective obstacles which may negate the injuredparty’s obligation to mitigate damages being incurred. In a comparativeapproach and by making reference to various International instrumentsincluding in particular the laws of England as the main origin of themitigation rule, this article shall discuss the conditions and impediments inline with effectuation of the said principle.
