قلمرو و ارکان رد منافع ناشی از نقض حق در کامن‌لای آنگلو- آمریکایی؛ تأملی در حقوق ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اقتصادی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اقتصادی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

10.22054/jplr.2026.92235.3007
چکیده
رد منافع ناشی از نقض حق به‌عنوان یکی از شیوه‌های نوین جبران خسارت، در حقوق کامن‌لای انگلیسی- آمریکایی، جایگاهی رو به گسترش یافته است. این نهاد با تمرکز بر سلب منافع تحصیل‌شده توسط ناقض حق، در پی جلوگیری از انتفاع نامشروع و تکمیل کارکردهای سنتی شیوه‌های جبران خسارت در مسئولیت مدنی است. در ارتباط با این نهاد، پرسش اصلی از این قرار است: تحت چه شرایطی صاحب حق می‌تواند از این نهاد بهره‌مند گردد؟ همچنین پرسش دیگر این است که در کدام حوزه از ابواب ایراد خسارت (قهری و قراردادی) امکان تمسک به چنین ضمانت اجرایی وجود دارد؟ این پژوهش با رویکردی توصیفی– تحلیلی به بررسی شرایط و عناصر لازم برای مطالبه رد منافع ناشی از نقض حق در قلمرو مسئولیت مدنی قهری و قراردادی در کامن‌لای انگلیسی– آمریکایی و حقوق ایران می‌پردازد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که امکان اعمال رد منافع، منوط به تحقق شرایطی همچون نقض حق قانونی یا قراردادی، تحصیل منفعت از سوی ناقض، ورود زیان به صاحب حق، احراز رابطه سببیت میان نقض و منفعت تحصیل‌شده و عدم کفایت سایر شیوه‌های جبران خسارت است. افزون بر این در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی، مفهوم «انتظار مشروع» متعهدله و در مسئولیت قهری، ملاحظات منع داراشدن ناعادلانه و بازدارندگی، نقش اساسی در توجیه این نهاد ایفا می‌کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Scope and Requirements for Granting Disgorgement in Tortious and Contractual Liability in Anglo-American Common Law: Reflections on Iranian Law

نویسندگان English

Hamid Reza Oloumi Yazdi 1
Mohammad Hadi Javaherkalam 2
Shobeir Azadbakht 3
1 Associate Professor , Department of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. Student, Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allame Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

1. Introduction
“Disgorgement damages” has been introduced to the legal community as one of the non-compensatory remedies for damages under the Anglo‑American common law system. This remedy refers to the deprivation, in whole or in part, of the benefits obtained by the wrongdoer through the violation of the legal or contractual rights of the entitled party, and subsequently, the return of those benefits to the right‑holder. The novelty of this remedy has consistently generated numerous questions among common‑law scholars. Its concept, its position among other forms of damages, its contractual or non‑contractual foundations, as well as issues concerning calculation and payment, are among the questions that have occupied both doctrinal scholarship and judicial practice. In a previous work, we examined in detail the concept, status, and advantages of this remedy; therefore, this study proceeds on the assumption that the phase of identifying disgorgement of profits has already been addressed.
Nevertheless, merely proposing the recognition of disgorgement damages, without a precise explanation of its scope, conditions of application, and constitutive elements, cannot meet the theoretical and practical needs of the legal system. The central issue is, in fact, determining in which domain of civil liability (whether tortious or contractual) this remedy may properly be adopted and applied. Can it be accepted, without qualification, across all types of contracts and in all instances of non‑contractual obligations? Or do the particularities of each domain require a careful and purposeful distinction?
On the other hand, a further foundational question arises: under what conditions may the right‑holder be permitted to benefit from disgorgement damages? Is the mere establishment of the conventional elements of civil liability (namely, harm, wrongful act, and causal link between the two) sufficient for the application of this
remedy? Or must additional or distinct elements and conditions be considered alongside these conventional requirements?

2. Literature Review
In recent years, Iranian legal scholars, influenced by common law doctrine (from the United States, England, Australia, and Canada) and recognizing the advantages of disgorgement of profits derived from rights violations, have produced commendable works on this subject for the legal community (Babaei & Azadbakht, 2025: pp. 1-58; Babaei & Azadbakht, 2026: pp. 1-33; Nematollahi & Seyyed Ali Routhe, 2020: pp. 31-55; Rezaei, 2024: pp. 155-176). Nevertheless, these works have addressed only the concept, foundations, and feasibility of accepting disgorgement of damages. A thorough analysis of the scope of this remedy and the conditions for claiming it has largely remained unexplored. This study examines, in detail and through a close analysis of U.S. and English law, the contexts in which disgorgement of profits may be applied and the conditions for claiming it.
3. Methodology
Adopting a descriptive–analytical approach, the present study examines the conditions and elements required for claiming disgorgement within the framework of tortious and contractual liability in Anglo-American common law.
4. Results and Discussion
The remedy of “disgorgement damages,” as one of the emerging yet effective methods of compensation, has garnered increasing
acceptance in contemporary legal systems and has gradually established an independent position within the framework of civil remedies. Unlike traditional methods of compensation, which primarily focus on redressing the harm suffered by the injured party, this institution seeks to establish a fair balance between the parties by divesting the wrongdoer of any illicit profits obtained and thereby preventing unjust enrichment. From this perspective, disgorgement of profits is not only a compensatory tool but also possesses a deterrent function.

An examination of this institution reveals that, both theoretically and practically, disgorgement of profits is compatible with various branches of civil liability, including tortious and contractual obligations. In the realm of contractual liability, the primary basis for justifying the obligation to disgorge profits can be found in the concept of the obligee’s “legitimate expectation.” This expectation, in essence, entitles the contracting party to be assured that the obligor will not gain an economic advantage through the breach of contractual commitments. Within this framework, disgorgement of profits serves as a mechanism to preserve contractual equilibrium and prevent the reduction of contractual obligations to a mere economic calculation by the obligor.
In the domain of tortious liability, although the general principle is to compensate for the harm incurred through compensatory damages and to restore the injured party’s situation as much as possible, there are circumstances where these methods may be insufficient to fully satisfy the right‑holder’s claim. In such cases, the disgorgement of profits can function as a supplementary remedy, acting in conjunction with other compensation methods. This is particularly
relevant in scenarios where the wrongdoer has obtained significant benefits without causing calculable harm; in such instances, relying solely on compensatory damages might perpetuate an unjust situation and could even incentivize rights-violating behaviors.

However, the application of the disgorgement remedy is subject to specific rules and conditions and cannot be applied absolutely or without restriction. Among the essential prerequisites for this remedy are: the violation of the legal or contractual right of the entitled party, the wrongdoer’s acquisition of economic benefit as a result of this violation, and the suffering of harm by the entitled party. Furthermore, establishing the wrongful act by the violator, the inadequacy of other compensatory measures, and ultimately, confirming the causal link between the violation of the right and the benefit obtained by the violator, are among the necessary elements for claiming and adjudicating the disgorgement of profits.
5. Conclusion
The sum of these considerations indicates that the remedy of disgorgement damages, when its conditions of application and its place alongside other civil remedies are precisely delineated, can be considered an effective institution for achieving justice, preventing unjust enrichment, and strengthening the deterrent function of civil liability. This is an institution that, with due regard to its governing principles and foundations, has the potential for development and institutionalization within the framework of Iranian law as well.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Non-compensatory Damages
Gain-based Damages
Loss
Causation
Legitimate Expectation
Inadequacy of Compensatory Damages
فارسی
کتاب‌ها
-       بابایی، ایرج، حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و الزامات خارج از قرارداد، چاپ اول (تهران: میزان، 1394).
-       بهرامی احمدی، حمید، ضمان قهری: مسئولیت مدنی، چاپ دوم (تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)، 1393).
-       رهبری، ابراهیم و کاظمی آهوئی، نجمه، قرارداد عدم رقابت، چاپ دوم (تهران: سمت، 1396).
-       صفایی، سید حسین و رحیمی، حبیب‌الله، مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد)، چاپ سیزدهم (تهران: سمت، 1399).
- کاتوزیان، ناصر، الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد: مسئولیت مدنی (قواعد عمومی)، جلد اول، چاپ چهاردهم (تهران: دانشگاه تهران، 1395).
 مقاله‌ها
-       بابایی، ایرج و آزادبخت، شبیر، «مطالعه تطبیقی و تبیین مبانی روش جبران خسارت رد منافع ناشی از نقض حق در کامن‌لای انگلیسی ـ آمریکایی»، دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دوره 31، شماره 115، (1405)، صص 1-33.
-       بابایی، ایرج و آزادبخت، شبیر، «مفهوم و جایگاه رد منافع ناشی از نقض حق در مسئولیت مدنی قراردادی؛ چالش‌ها و کاربردها»، پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، دوره 14، شماره 52، (1404)، صص 1-58.
-       بادینی، حسن و تخشید، زهرا، «مقدمه‌ای تحلیلی و انتقادی بر مطالعۀ تطبیقی حقوق مسئولیت مدنی آمریکا»، مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره 49 ، شماره 2، (1398)، صص 217-237.
-       بالی‌پور بابادی، سعید؛ احمدی، فیروز و میرزائی، جمشید، «امکان سنجی استرداد منافع ناشی از نقض قرارداد در حقوق ایران با مطالعه حقوق انگلیس»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 27، شماره 1، (1402)، صص 1-22.
-       خورسندیان، محمدعلی و سخنور، مهدی، «قابلیت مطالبه منافع ناشی از طمع‌ورزی در قرارداد: مطالعه‌ای در حقوق امریکا و ایران»، مطالعات حقوقی، دوره 13، شماره 3، (1400)، صص 33-63.
-       رضایی، روح‌الله، «سلب منافع؛ واکنشی به نقض عامدانه قرارداد (مطالعه تطبیقی در نظام کامن‌لا، رومی-ژرمنی، ایران و مبانی فقهی)»، دانش حقوق مدنی، دوره 13، شماره 25، (1403)، صص 155-176.
-       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، دوره 10، شماره 19، (1402)، صص 73-98.
-       میرشکاری، عباس و آزادبخت، شبیر، «قابلیت جبران خسارات مازاد بر دیه در پرتو رویه قضایی»، نقد و تحلیل آراء قضایی، دوره 1، شماره 2، (1401)، صص 557-593.
-       نعمت‌اللهی، اسماعیل و سیدعلی روته، مریم سادات، «بررسی خسارت اعاده منفعت در حقوق مسئولیت مدنی در حقوق کامن‌لا و ایران»، حقوق خصوصی، دوره 17، شماره 36، (1399)، صص 31-55.
-       نعمت‌اللهی، اسماعیل و سیدعلی روته، مریم سادات، «بررسی خسارت نفع‌محور ناشی از نقض قرارداد در کامن‌لا و حقوق ایران»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 10، شماره 2، (1398)، صص 783-803.
References
Books
-       Barnett, Katy, Accounting for Profit for Breach of Contract: Theory and Practice (Oregon: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).
-       Bauer, Ralph Stanley, Essentials of the Law of Damages (Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1919).
-       Birks, Peter, “Restitution for Wrongs”, In: Schrage, E. J. H. (ed), Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution, 2th Edition (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1999).
-       Burrows, Andrew, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract and Equitable Wrongs (London: Oxford University Press, 2019).
-       Edelman, James, Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property (Oregon: Hart publishing, 2002).
-       Farnswoth, Ward, Restitution: Civil Liablity for Unjust Enrichment (The University of Chicago Press, 2014).
-       Feinberg, Joel, Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of The Criminal Law, (London: Oxford University Press, 1984).
-       Jaffey, Petter, The Nature and Scope of Restitution: Vitiated Transfers, Imputed Contracts and Disgorgement (Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2000).
-       McBride, Nicholas, “Restitution for Wrongs”, In: Mitchell, Ch & Swadling, W. (ed), The Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2013).
-       McBride, Nicholas J & Bagshaw, Roderick, Tort Law (London: Pearson Education Limited, 2018).
- Virgo, Graham, “Restitutionary Remedies for Wrongs: Causation and Remoteness”, In: Charles EF. Rickett, (ed), Justifying private law remedies (Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2008).
- W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, 5th Edition (Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1984).
Articles
-       Anderson, Roy Ryden, “The Compensatory Disgorgement Alternative to Restatement Third's New Remedy for Breach of Contract”, SMUL Rev., Vol. 68, No. 4, (2015).
-       Anderson, Lesley, “Negotiating Or Gain Based Remedies in Contract Account of Profits, Wortham Park and its Progeny”, Manchester Review of Law, Crime and Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 1, (2016).
-       Buggs, Kathryn, “Gonna Get Those Ill-Gotten Gains: Improving the FTC's Authority to Seek Disgorgement in Antitrust Cases”, Mich. L. Rev., Vol. 121, No. 7, (2022).
-       Clapton, Mysty S., “Gain-based Remedies for Knowing Assistance: Ensuring Assistants Do not Profit from Their Wrongs”, Alberta Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, (2008).
-       Collins, Paul, “Liability for Profits in Breach of Contract: Revisiting Attorney-General Blake”, Restitution Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, (2015).
-       Cunnington, Ralph, “The Assessment of Gain‐Based Damages for Breach of Contract”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, (2008).
-       Farnsworth, E. Allan, “Your Loss or My Gain The Dilemma of the Disgorgement Principle in Breach of Contract”, Yale lj, Vol. 94, No. 6, (1984).
-       Gergen, Mark P., “Causation in Disgorgement”, BUL Rev., Vol. 92, No. 3, (2012).
-       Gingrich, Cole, “Fixing Trademark Law with Romag Fasteners”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4, (2021).
-       Gonzalez, Laine, “Trademark Infringement and Profit Remedies in View of Romag v. Fossil”, Ind. L. Rev., Vol. 55, (2022).
-       Hamer, David, “Factual causation’ and ‘scope of liability’: What's the difference?”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, (2014).
-       Jaffey, Peter, “Restitutionary Damages and Disgorgement”, Restitution Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, (1995).
-       Jerrold, Laurance, “But for” vs “Substantial Factor”: A Study in Proximate Causation”, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 135, No. 3, (2009).
-       Martino, Jesse, “Limiting the Gain to be Disgorged by Defaulting Fiduciaries: The (ir) Relevance of Remoteness”, University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, (2023).
-       Mitchell, Charles, “Causation, Remoteness, and Fiduciary Gains”, King's College Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2006).
-       Roberts, Caprice L., “Disgorging Emoluments”, Marq. L. Rev., Vol. 103, No. 1, (2019).
-       Rotherham, Craig, “The Conceptual Structure of Restitution for Wrongs”, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 66, No, 1, (2007).
-       Rusch, Konrad, “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract: Comparative Analysis of English and German Law”, South African Law Journal, Vol. 118, No. 1, (2001).
-       Samuelson, Pamela & Gergen, Mark, “The Disgorgement Remedy of Design Patent Law”, California Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 1, (2020).
-        Sangiuliano, Anthony Robert, “Corrective Justice Account of Disgorgement for Breach of Contract by Analogy to Fiduciary Remedies”, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 29, No. 1, (2016).
-       Scharge, E. J. H., “Liability to Disgorge Profits upon Breach of Contract or a Delict”, Obiter, Vol. 34, No. 1, (2013).
-       Stapleton, Jane, “Law, Causation and Common sense”, Oxford J. Legal Stud., Vol. 8, (1988).
-       Temple, Adam, “Disgorgement Damages for Breach of Contract”, Denning Law Journal, Vol. 20, (2008).
-       Williams, Glanville, “Causation in the Law”, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, (1961).
-       Worthington, Sarah, “Reconsidering Disgorgement for Wrongs”, Modern Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, (1999).
-       Wright, Richard W., “Causation in Tort Law”, Calif. L. Rev., Vol. 73, (1985).
دوره 15، شماره 56
پاییز 1405
صفحه 137-180