Excuses For Exemption From Compensation Due To Violation Of Obligations In Iranian And French Law (With Emphasis On Sanctions)

Abstract

The principle of necessity in contracts is one of the most fundamental principles accepted in both the Iranian and French legal systems. But this principle, like other legal principles, is not absolute and has exceptions. The present study, with a descriptive-analytical method, tries to answer the question that what are the conditions and basics of exemption from damages in the legal system of Iran and France and what are its voluntary and involuntary excuses. What is the role of embargo as one of the examples of involuntary excuses in the exemption from compensation. The findings of the research indicate that these exceptions are known in French law under the general theory of contractual excuses and in Iranian law as the rule of excuse and obligation to fulfill the contract. The general theory of contractual excuses in French law includes "impossibility of fulfilling obligations", "failure to perform the contract" and "unforeseen events". In Iranian law, the excuses for the execution of the contract are known under the two rules of "excuse of fidelity to the contract" and the rule of "negation of hardship and hardship". Thus, in French law, force majeure and its justification, i.e. embargo, are involuntary excuses. The cases mentioned in Iran's laws are also accepted and are among the cases of compensation for damages, but failure to perform the contract and unforeseen events have not been specified, and terms such as making it difficult to perform the contract cannot be counted as reasons for exemption, and this Factors should be accepted as risks in contracts.