پژوهش حقوق خصوصی

داوران سال 1404

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

مفهوم و جایگاه ردّ منافع ناشی از نقض حق در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی؛ چالش‌ها و کاربردها

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار حقوق خصوصی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی (ره)، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی (ره)، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نظام پرداخت خسارات در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی برای صیانت از حقوق صاحبان حق از شیوه‌های مختلفی بهره می‌برد. شیوه‌های پرداخت خسارت براساس اهدافی که دنبال می‌کنند در دو گروه خسارات ترمیمی و غیرترمیمی قرار می‌گیرند. برای تعیین میزان خسارت قابل پرداخت در خسارات ترمیمی، تکیۀ اصلی بر جبران زیان زیان‌دیده و در خسارات غیرترمیمی تمرکز بر مسائلی نظیر سوءنیت عامل زیان یا محروم کردن ناقض از منافع نامشروع تحصیل‌شده است. ردّ منافع ناشی از نقض حق در زمرۀ خسارات غیرترمیمی است که با پیشینۀ کامن‌لایی خود توجۀ حقوق‌دانان ایرانی را به خود جلب کرده است. در همین راستا و برای توجیه پذیرش این نهاد در حقوق ایران، چند پرسش قابل طرح است: مفهوم و جایگاه این ضمانت اجرا در میان سایر ضمانت اجراها چگونه قابل تحلیل است؟ چالش‌ها و کاربردهای این نهاد در نظام مسئولیت مدنی چیست؟ در این نوشتار تلاش می‌شود که با رویکردی تحلیلی-توصیفی و با نگاهی تطبیقی به نظام‌های حقوقی آمریکا و انگلیس به این سؤالات پاسخ داده شود. در مجموع، به‌نظر می‌رسد که باوجود چالش‌های موجود بر سر راه این ضمانت اجرای نوین، ردّ منافع ناشی از نقض حق می‌تواند به‌عنوان یک ضمانت اجرای استثنایی در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی بسیار کارآمد جلوه نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Concept and Position of Disgorgement Damages in Contractual Liability: Challenges and Applications

نویسندگان [English]

  • Iraj Babaei 1
  • Shobeir Azadbakht 2

1 Associate Professor of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The observance of individuals' contractual rights by other members of society is a desirable goal that is sometimes not achieved. After a harmful act is committed and loss is inflicted upon the right-holder, they are placed in an unfavorable situation. This unpleasant situation causes the obligor to resort to the contractual civil liability system to assert his rights and claim damages.
The contractual liability system employs various mechanisms to safeguard the rights of claimants. Damages methods are categorized into two groups, Compensatory and non-compensatory damages, based on their underlying objectives. In determining the amount payable for compensatory damages, the primary focus is on compensating the aggrieved party for incurred losses. In contrast, non-compensatory damages center on factors such as the wrongdoer’s bad faith or stripping the violator of unlawfully obtained benefits.
However, it is often stated in civil liability law that the customary and normal method of paying damages in contractual civil liability is to pay “Compensatory damages”, i.e., expectation damages and reliance damages. However, the insistence on the traditional method of paying damages should not neglect the civil liability system from other methods. In this regard, the common law legal system has moved towards accepting other types of damages with the aim of depriving the infringer of benefits. Among these damages, which is the subject of this article, is the disgorgement damages.
Disgorgement damages - a form of non-compensatory damages and, in essence, a gain-based remedy - has drawn the attention of Iranian legal scholars due to its common law origins. In this context, several key questions arise concerning its justification within Iranian law:
    How can the concept and position of this legal remedy be analyzed among other damages?
    What are the challenges and applications of this mechanism within the civil liability system?
In addition, the fundamental question of why the traditional methods of paying damages and reaching a new and novel path of denying benefits resulting from infringement of rights still remain. In fact, the main question is why the American and English legal systems, along with the traditional methods of paying damages, have focused their attention and focus on denying benefits resulting from infringement of rights? What are the inadequacies and shortcomings of traditional methods that have forced common law scholars to break their habit and struggle to find the scope of application of disgorgement damages? Above this, what exactly are the functions and goals that can be achieved by the new institution of disgorgement damages? These questions seem natural to lawyers of a system based on written law, such as Iranian law, because if an unjustifiable answer is reached, there will be no need to examine this institution in our country's legal system.
This study adopts an analytical-descriptive approach with a comparative perspective on the legal systems of the United States and England to address these questions. Ultimately, it appears that despite existing challenges, disgorgement of profits can serve as an exceptional and highly effective remedy in contractual liability.
In other words, given the long history and reliance of the civil liability system on compensatory damages, the introduction and consolidation of the aforementioned remedies will naturally face several challenges. In this type of damage, instead of paying attention to the amount of damage caused to the right holder, the amount of benefits gained by him is considered. In fact, the acceptance of this institution causes the view of the compensation system in compulsory and contractual civil liability to shift from focusing solely on the injured party and, in this way, to also address the situation of the violator.
If the main goal of compensatory damages is to create the maximum indifference between the situation before and after the injured party (after the occurrence of the harmful event), the goal of disgorgement damages is to create this indifference in the situation of the violator. Naturally, this approach to damages requires justification.
In fact, Challenges such as the uncertainty of commercial contracts, the principle of full compensation, the obligation to deal with the damage, the adequacy of compensatory damages, and the lack of attention to the skill and effort of the infringer reinforce the tendency to reject and recognize the aforementioned institution.
However, it seems that, first, all the challenges mentioned are weak in terms of their basis and cannot seriously challenge the acceptance of disgorgement damages; second, disgorgement damages has undeniable benefits (such as helping to achieve the goals of civil liability, etc.); and third, disgorgement damages does not seek to replace and be placed in the presence of other damages, but rather the main purpose of this remedy is to fill the gaps in the traditional and customary methods of paying damages.
More precisely, the disgorgement damages will play a certain role during the other existing remedies and in cases of their inefficiency. The result is that, at least from a theoretical perspective, there is no significant obstacle to the entry and recognition of disclaimers of interest in the civil liability system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Compensatory
  • Non-compensatory damages
  • Account of profits
  • Unjust enrichment by subtraction
  • Principle of full compensation
مراجع
کتب فارسی:
ـ انصاری، مهدی، تحلیل اقتصادی حقوق قراردادها، چاپ دوم، (تهران، جاودانه: 1393).
ـ انوری، حسن، فرهنگ فشرده سخن، جلد اول، چاپ ششم، (تهران: سخن، 1390).
ـ بابایی، ایرج، حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و الزامات خارج از قرارداد، چاپ اول، (تهران: میزان، 1394).
ـ داراب‌پور، مهراب، قاعده مقابله با خسارت، چاپ اول، (تهران: گنج دانش، 1377).
ـ جعفری لنگرودی، محمد جعفر، مبسوط در ترمینولوژی حقوق، جلد سوم چاپ هفتم، (تهران: گنج دانش، 1395).
ـ رحیمی، حبیب‌الله، استفاده بلاجهت: مطالعه تطبیقی، چاپ اول، (تهران: سهامی انتشار، 1388).
ـ کاتوزیان، ناصر، قواعد عمومی قراردادها: اجرای قرارداد، جلد چهارم، چاپ دهم، (تهران: سهامی انتشار، 1395).
ـ معین، محمد، فرهنگ فارسی، جلد اول، چاپ دهم، (تهران: امیرکبیر، 1375).
ـ وحدتی شبیری، سید حسن، مبانی مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی (مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق و فقه)، چاپ دوم، (قم: پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی، 1395).
ـ یزدانیان، علیرضا، قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی با مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق فرانسه، جلد اول، چاپ اول، (تهران: میزان، 1395).
مقالات فارسی:
ـ بادینی، حسن، «بررسی تطبیقی قابلیت جبرانِ ضرر اقتصادی در مسؤولیت مدنی»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، دوره 41، شمارۀ 1 (1390)، صص. 59-78.
ـ بادینی، حسن، «هدف مسئولیت مدنی»، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، دورۀ 66 (1383)، 55-113.
ـ حسینی، سیده ام‌البنین و عیسائی تفرشی، محمد، «بازتعریف مفهوم استرداد دارایی‌های نامشروع در نظام حقوقی انگلیس و ایران»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 22، شمارۀ 4 (1397)، صص. 29-63.
ـ خورسندیان، محمدعلی و سخنور، مهدی، «قابلیت مطالبه منافع ناشی از طمع‌ورزی در قرارداد: مطالعه‌ای در حقوق امریکا و ایران»، مطالعات حقوقی، دورۀ 13، شمارۀ 3 (1400)، صص. 33-63.
ـ رضایی، روح‌الله، «سلب منافع؛ واکنشی به نقض عامدانه قرارداد (مطالعه تطبیقی در نظام کامن‌لا، رومی-ژرمنی، ایران و مبانی فقهی)»، دانش حقوق مدنی، دورۀ 13، شمارۀ 25 (1403)، صص. 155-176.
ـ رمضانی ماهونکی، محمد صادق؛ انصاری، اعظم و قبولی درافشان، سید محمد مهدی، «استرداد منافع ناشی از نقض قرارداد در کامن‌لا، کنوانسیون وین 1980 و حقوق ایران»، حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 10، شمارۀ 19 (1402)، صص. 73-98.
ـ شهبازی‌نیا، مرتضی؛ مقراضی اصل، الهام؛ شعاریان، ابراهیم و رحیمی خجسته، حسین، «استرداد سود حاصل از نقض قرارداد و تقابل آن با نظریۀ نقض کارآمد»، مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 54، شمارۀ 3 (1403)، صص. 283-309.
ـ صادقی مقدم، محمد حسن و نوری یوشانلوئی، جعفر، «تحول مسؤولیت مدنی در حقوق ایران و فرانسه با تأکید بر شناسائی خسارات غیرترمیمی»، فصلنامه حقوق (مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی)، دورۀ 41، شمارۀ 4 (1390)، صص. 161-184.
ـ عابدیان کلخوران، میرحسین و عبدی، مونا، «تحلیل حقوقی-اقتصادی قابلیت پذیرش خسارات مبتنی‌بر نفع عایدی ناقض قرارداد»، تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 23، شمارۀ 89 (1399)، صص. 399-419.
ـ میرشکاری، عباس؛ حسینی، فاطمه سادات و صمدی، افروز، «مطالعه تطبیقی روش ارزیابی عدم‌النفع با تاکید بر رویه قضایی ایران»، حقوقی دادگستری، دورۀ 87، شمارۀ 124 (1402)، صص. 1-40.
ـ نظری، علی و میرشکاری، عباس، «ارزش شهرت: گفتاری در روش‌های جبران خسارت ناشی از بهره‌برداری تجاری از شهرت دیگری»، پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دورۀ 21، شمارۀ 49 (1401)، صص. 171-199.
ـ نعمت‌اللهی، اسماعیل و سیدعلی روته، مریم سادات، «بررسی خسارت اعاده منفعت در حقوق مسئولیت مدنی در حقوق کامن‌لا و ایران»، حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 17، شمارۀ 36 (1399)، صص. 31-55.
ـ نعمت‌اللهی، اسماعیل، «اصل جبرانی بودن خسارت و کارکردهای آن در کامن‌لا و حقوق ایران»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 23، شمارۀ 4 (1398)، صص. 783-803.
ـ نعمت‌اللهی، اسماعیل، «منافع سه گانه در خسارت های قراردادی»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 22، شمارۀ 3 (1397)، صص. 163-189.
References
English
Anderson, L., “Negotiating Or Gain Based Remedies in Contract Account of Profits, Wortham Park and its Progeny”, Manchester Review of Law, Crime and Ethics, 5, 2016, pp. 185-204.
Anderson, R. R., “The Compensatory Disgorgement Alternative to Restatement Third's New Remedy for Breach of Contract”, SMUL Rev., 68, 2015, pp. 953-1020.
Ball, E., Enrichment at the Claimant’s Expense: Attribution Rules in Unjust Enrichment. (Hart Publishing, 2016).
Barnett, K., “Deterrence and Disgorging Profits for Breach of Contract”, Restitution Law Review, 17, 2009, 79-97.
Barnett, K., Accounting for profit for breach of contract: Theory and practice, (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).
Bauman, J. A., York, K. & Bauman J. H., Gilbert Law Summaries; Remedies, (Gilbert, 2006).
Blanchard, S., “Nominal damages as vindication”, George Mason Law Review, 30 (1), 2022, pp. 227-277.
Burrow, A., Principles of the English Law of Obligations, (Oxford University Press, 2015).
Caggiano, I., “Disgorgement, compensation and restitution: comparative approach”, Global Jurist, 16 (2), 2016, pp. 243-266.
Campbell, D & Wylie, Ph., “Ain't no telling (which circumstances are exceptional)”, Cambridge Law Journal, 62, 2003, pp. 605-630.
Cane, P., Key Ideas in Law: Tort Law, (Hart Publishing, 2017).
Chen-Wishart, M., “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract”, The Law Quarterly Review, 114, 1998, pp. 363-365.
Chetwin, M. C., & Round, D. K., “Breach of Contract and the New Remedy of Account of Profits”, Abacus, 38 (3), 2002, pp. 406-424.
Clapton, M. S., “Gain-based remedies for knowing assistance: Ensuring assistants do not profit from their wrongs”, Alberta Law Review, 2008, pp. 989-1016.
Cornel, N., “What Do We Remedy?”, In: Miller, P. B. & Oberdiek, J., Civil Wrongs and Justice in Private Law, (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Dagan, H. (2000), “Restitutionary damages for breach of contract: an exercise in private law theory”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 1 (1), 2000, pp. 115-154.
De La Rosa, G, & Shopovski, J., “Directors' conflicts of interest: different European legal perspectives”, Beijing Law Review, 4 (4), 2013, pp. 174-179.
Deakin, S. F., Adams, Z., & Markesinis, B., Markesinis and Deakin's tort law, (Oxford University Press, 2019).
Devonshire, P., Account of Profits, (Thomson Reuters, 2013).
Dobbs, D. B., Heyden, P. T. & Bublick, E. M., Torts and Compensation: Personal Accounribility and Social Responsibility for Injury, 8th Edition, (West Academic Publishing, 2017).
Edelman, J. & Bant, E., Unjust Enrichment, (Bloomsbury, 2016).
Edelman, J., “The Measure of Restitution and the Future of Restitutionary Damages”, Restitution Law Review, 18, 2010, pp. 1-13.
Edelman, J., Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property, (Hart Publishing, 2002).
Eisenberg, M. A., “Actual and virtual specific performance, the theory of efficient breach, and the indifference principle in contract law”, California Law Review, 93 (4), 2005, pp. 975-1050.
Eisenberg, M. A., “The disgorgement interest in contract law”, Michigan Law Review, 105 (3), 2006, pp. 559-602.
Farnswoth, W., Restitution: Civil Liablity for Unjust Enrichment, (The University of Chicago Press, 2014).
Fox, D., “Restitutionary Damages to Deter Breach of Contract”, The Cambridge Law Journal, 60 (1), pp. 33-35.
Frey, M. A., Bitting, T. H. & Frey, Ph. H., An Introduction to the Law of Contracts, 3th Edition, (West Legal Studies, 2000).
Friedman, D., “The efficient breach fallacy”, Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (1), 1989, pp. 1-24.
Garner, B. A., Black's law dictionary. (Thomson West, 2004).
Giglio, F., “Psuedo-restitutionary damages: some thoughts on the dual theory of restitution for wrongs”, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 22 (1), 2009, pp. 49-78.
Giglio, F., The Foundations of Restitution for Wrongs, (Hart Publishing, 2007).
Goodhart, W., “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract”, Restitution Law Review, 3, 1995, pp. 3-14.
Grantham, R. R., & Rickett, C. C., “Disgorgement for unjust enrichment”, Cambridge Law Journal, 62, 2003, pp. 159-180.
Halaby, A. F., & Kelly, P. W., “Disgorgement of profits as california breach of contract remedy: intellectual property and other guideposts”, UC Davis Business Law Journal, 19 (2), 2019, pp. 151-170.
Hayward, K. A., “Disgorgement of defendant's gains from opportunistic breach of contract: its fit in rhode island”, Roger Williams University Law Review, 22 (3), 2017, pp. 614-639.
Holdworth, W. S., A History of English Law. Vol. 3, 3th Edition. (Methuen, 1923).
Jaffey, P., “Contract, Unjust Enrichment and Restitution: The Signicance of Classication”, In: Giliker, P. (ed), Re-examining Contract and Unjust Enrichment Anglo-Canadian Perspectives, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007).
Jaffey, P., “Disgorgement for breach of contract”, Restitution Law Review, 8 (4), 2000, pp. 578-587.
Jaffey, P., “Efficiency, disgorgement and reliance in contract: comment on campbell and harris”, Legal Studies, 22 (4), 2002, pp. 570-577.
Jaffey, P., The Nature and Scope of Restitution: Vitiated Transfers, Imputed Contracts and Disgorgement, (Hart Publishing, 2000).
Lodder, A. V. M., Enrichment in the Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution, (Hart Publishing, 2012).
Lodder, A. V. M., Enrichment in the Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution, (Hart Publishing, 2012).
McBride, N. J., “Duties of care - do they really exist?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (3), 2004, pp. 417-441.
McCamus, J. D., “Disgorgement for breach of contract: comparative perspective”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 36 (2), 2003, pp. 943-974.
McDermott, J., & Skinnon, J., “Restitution for Breach of Contract”, Deakin L. Rev., 6, 2001, pp. 112-119.
McInnes, M., “At the plaintiff's expense: quantifying restitutionary relief”, Cambridge Law Journal, 57 (3), 1998, pp. 472-480.
McInnes, M., “Gain, Loss and the User Principle”, Restitution Law Review, 14, 2006, pp. 76-92.
McInnes, M., “Unjust Factors, Juristic Reasons and Contracts in Anglo-Canadian Law”, In: Giliker, P. (ed), Re-examining Contract and Unjust Enrichment Anglo-Canadian Perspectives, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007).
McInnnes, M., “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract: Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co”, Can. Bus. LJ, 37, 2002, pp. 125-133.
McInnnes, M., “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract: Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co.”. Can. Bus. LJ, 37, 2002, pp. 125-133.
McKendrick, E., “Taxonomy: does it matter?”, In: Johnston, D. & Zimmermann, R. (eds), Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Ogus, A. I., “Damages for Pre-Contract Expenditure”. The Modern Law Review, 35 (4), 1972, pp. 423-426.
Ong, D.,“Non-financial loss resulting from tort and breach of contract: the availability of monetary remedy that is non-compensatory, non-restitutionary, non-punitive, and not a mere solatium”, The University of Queensland Law Journal, 22 (1), 2002, pp. 20-53.
Pearce, D., & Halson, R., “Damages for breach of contract: compensation, restitution and vindication”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28 (1), 2008, pp. 73-98.
Peel, E., (2015). The Law of Contract, (Thomson Reuters, 2015).
Phang, A., & Lee, P. W., “Rationalising Restitutionary Damages in Contract Law: An Elusive or Illusory Ques”, Journal of Contract Law, 17 (3), 2001, pp. 240-273.
Pool, J., Casebook on Contract Law. 13th Edition. (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Rickett, J., “Disgorgement for breach of contract: my loss, your gain”, Auckland University Law Review, 9 (2), 2001, pp. 375-403.
Roach, G. P., “Texas Remedies in Equity for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Disgorgement, Forfeiture, and Fracturing”, Mary's LJ, 45, 2013, pp. 367-490.
Roberts, C. L., “Disgorging Emoluments”, Marq. L. Rev., 103, 2019, pp. 1-42.
Roberts, C. L., “Restitutionary disgorgement for opportunistic breach of contract and mitigation of damages”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 42 (1), 2008, pp. 131-176.
Roberts, C. L., “Supreme Disgorgement”. Fla. L. Rev., 68, 2016, pp. 1413-1440.
Rotherham, C., “Deterrence as justification for awarding accounts of profits”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32 (3), 2012, pp. 537-562.
Samuelson, P. & Gergen, M., “The disgorgement remedy of design patent law”, California Law Review, 108 (1), 2020, pp. 183-232.
Sangiuliano, A., “Corrective Justice Account of Disgorgement for Breach of Contract by Analogy to Fiduciary Remedies”, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 29 (1), 2016, pp. 149-190.
Scharge, E. J. H., “Liability to disgorge profits upon breach of contract or a delict”, Obiter, 34 (1), 2013, pp. 17-28.
Seaman, C. B., Cotter, T. F., Love, B. J., Siebrasse, N., & Suzuki, M., “Lost Profits and Disgorgement”, In: Patent Remedies and Complex Products: Toward a Global Consensus, (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
Seddon, N. C. & Bigwood, R. A., Cheshire and Fifoot Law of Contract, 11th Edition, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2017).
Siems, M., “Disgorgement of profits for breach of contract: A comparative analysis”, Edinburgh Law Review, 7 (1), 2003, pp. 27-59.
Skilling, K. C. (2015), “Coverage for ill-gotten gains: discussing the (un)insurability of restitution and disgorgement”, Washington and Lee Law Review, 72 (2), 2015, pp. 1077-1135.
Smith, L. D., “Disgorgement of the profits of breach of contract: property, contract and efficient breach”, Canadian Business Law Journal, 24 (1), 1994, pp. 121-140.
Stafford, T., “Gains based remedies: the misguided search for doctrine”, IALS Student Law Review, 4 (1), 2016, pp. 3-12.
The Law Commission, “Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages”, Consultation Paper, 1997.
Thel, S., & Siegelman, P., “You do have to keep your promises: disgorgement theory of contract remedies”, William and Mary Law Review, 52 (4), 2011, pp. 1181-1246.
Watterson, S. “Alternative and Cumulative Remedies: What Is the Difference”. RLR, 11, 2003, pp. 7-25.
Weinrib, E. J., “Punishment and disgorgement as contract remedies”, Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 78, 2003, pp. 55-104.
Translated References into English
Abedian, M. H. & Abdi, M. (2020). “Legal-Economic Analysis of the Acceptability of Gain-based Damages”. Legal Research Quarterly, 23 (89), (2020). [In Persian]
Ansari, M., Economic analysis of contract law, (Tehran: Javdaneh, 2014). [In Persian]
Anvari, H. Compact Dictionary of Sokhan, Vol. 1, (Tehran: Sokhan, 2011). [In Persian]
Babaei, I., Tort Law, (Tehran: Mizan, 2015). [In Persian]
Badini, H., “Comparative Study of Reparability of Economic Loss in Tort Law”, Law Quarterly, 41 (1), (2011). [In Persian]
Badini, H., “The Purpose of Tort Law”, Law & Political science, 66, (2004). [In Persian]
Darabpour, M., Mitigation of Damage, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 1998). [In Persian]
Hosseini, O. & Issaei Tafreshi M., “Redefining restitution of illegitimate assets in English & Iranian Law”, CLR, 22 (4), (2018). [In Persian]
Jafari Langroudi, M. J., legal terminology, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2016). [In Persian]
Katouzian, N., General rules of contracts: Performance of Contract, Vol. 4, (Tehran: Sahami Enteshar, 2016). [In Persian]
Mirshekari, A.; Hosseini, F. S. & Samadi, A. “The Comparative Study Of Expected Benefit With Focus On Iranian Judicial Procedure”. The Judiciarys Law Journal, 87 (124), (2023). [In Persian]
Moein, M., Persian Dictionary, Vol. 1, (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1996). [In Persian]
Nazari, A. and Mirshekari, A. “The Value of Fame: A Survey on the Methods of Compensation for Commercial Exploitation of the Reputation of Other”. Journal of Legal Research, 21 (49), (2022). [In Persian]
Nematollahi E., “Principle of Compensatory Character of Damages and Its Functions in Common Law and Iranian Law”, CLR, 23 (4), (2019). [In Persian]
Nematollahi E., “Threefold Interests in Contract Damages”., CLR, 22 (3), (2018). [In Persian]
Nematollahi, E. & Seyed Ali Routeh, M. S., “A Study of Disgorgement of Profit in Civil Liability in Common Law and Iranian Law”. Private Law, 17 (1), (2020). [In Persian]
Rahimi, H., Unjust Enrichment: Comparative Study, (Tehran: Sahami Enteshar, 2009).
Ramezani Mahoonaki, M. S. , Ansari, A. & Qabuli Dorafshan, S. M. M., “Restitution of Benefits for Breach of Contract in Common Law, Vienna Convention 1980 and Iranian Law”, Journal of Comparative Law, 10 (1), (2023). [In Persian]
Rezaei, R., “Disgorgement Damages; a Response to Willful Breach of Contract (Comparative Study in Common Law, Civil Law, Iran and Basis of Feqh)”, Civil Law Knowledge, 13 (25), (2024). [In Persian]
Sadeghi Moghadam, M. H. & Noury Yoshanloey, J., “Evolution of Civil Liability in French and Iranian Law with Emphasis on Recognition of Non Compensatory Damages”, Law Quarterly, 41 (4), (2021). [In Persian]
Shahbazinia, M. , Meghrazi asl, E. , Shoarian, E. & Rahimi Khojasteh, H., “Disgorgement of Profits for Breach of Contract in Contrast to Efficient Breach”, Law Quarterly, 54 (3), (2024). [In Persian]
Sokhanvar, M. & Khorsandian, M., “The ability to claim disgorgement in contract in United States law and its status in Iranian law”, Journal of Legal Studies, 13 (3), (2021). [In Persian]
Vahdati Shobeiri, S. H., Fundamentals of Contractual Civil Liability (Comparative Study in Law and Jurisprudence), (Qom: Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture, 2016). [In Persian]
Yazdanian, A. General rules of civil liability with a comparative study in French law, (Tehran: Mizan, 2016). [In Persian]
 
 [1]
 
 
 
 استناد به این مقاله: بابایی، ایرج و آزادبخت،, شبیر . (1404). مفهوم و جایگاه ردّ منافع ناشی از نقض حق در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی؛ چالش‌ها و کاربردها. پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، (52) 14، 1-58.
 doi: 10.22054/jplr.2025.87374.2948
 Private Law Research is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
دوره 14، شماره 52
مهر 1404
صفحه 1-58
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار