نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق خصوصی، گروه حقوق خصوصی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
The prevailing judicial procedure in Iran mandates the explicit stipulation of the right to terminate a contract as a remedy for breach. This article employs an analytical-critical method to demonstrate that this view fundamentally confuses contractual remedies with legal ones. It posits that termination options (Khiyarat), as instruments for dissolving binding contracts, are principally established by operation of law (Civil Code, Arts. 396+) and do not require contractual stipulation, save for the option of condition (Khiyar Shart). A contractual clause serves only a confirmatory or restrictive role. Liability arising from breach, particularly when linked to imperative rules, public order, or principles like “La Zarar” (no harm), is inherent to the obligation itself. The introduction of the “Electronic Termination” mechanism (2024) underscores this distinction, as it functions solely where a contractual right is explicitly agreed upon, facilitating automatic enforcement. Conversely, legal options necessitate judicial adjudication. The article concludes that judicial practice must rigorously differentiate between the contractual and legal origins of termination rights to cease the denial of fundamental protections for aggrieved parties and to align with the principles of the Civil Code.
کلیدواژهها English
