Methods of Evaluating the Damages under Iranian and English Legal Systems and International Instruments

دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی

Volume 27, Issue 18, June 2021, Pages 325-385   

Document Type: Scientific research

DOI: 10.22067/lowecon.2021.67734.1000

Authors

Ali Shahabi¹; Seyyed Hossein Safaei^{* 2}; Behrooz Akhlaghi³; mansour amini⁴

¹Ph.D. Candidate in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran

²Professor of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

³Associate Professor of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

⁴Associate Professor of Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Abstract:
Minimal contemplation of damages under Iranian legal and contractual liability systems is the reason leaves the constant temptation of a legal study (compared to other legal systems and the common experiences especially formed in the field of international trade). Consequently, review of the methods for evaluation of damages and reconsideration of the notions brought in modern world (with a glance at the economic requirements of the developing countries such as Iran) seems inevitable.
Having studied the methods of evaluating the damages caused by non-performance of the obligations in English legal system (as well as exploring the latest studies in this field) and also a number of most reputable international legal instruments such as CISG, Undroit, PECL and DCFR, we tried to support an interpret under Iranian law which goes beyond the current contemplations regarding the damages.
Analyzing the economic outcomes of Restitution, Expectation and Reliance methods as well as more recent theories such as Incomplete Contracts and Efficient Breach (besides the studies based on economic analysis of law during the years of 20^th century), with due regard to the necessities of the local market and during the short term at least, we can rely on a justifiable basis like Expectation.
 
Extended Abstract
Introduction:
Minimal contemplation of the institution of damages under Iranian legal and contractual liability systems is the reason leaves the constant temptation of a legal study (compared to other legal systems and the common experiences especially formed in the field of international trade). Consequently, review of the methods for evaluation of damages and reconsideration of the notions brought in modern world (with a glance at the economic requirements of the progressive countries such as Iran) seems inevitable.
Theoretical Framework:
This study attempts to reconsider, at the very first point, the concept of “actual harm” under the Iranian legal system (as well as the contractual liability system) which leaves a major impact on our economic ambiance. We, as the Iranian lawyers, are acquainted with the phrase “there remain the possibility for the actual harms only to be compensated” (or claimed to be compensated). In light of the modern world progresses (as well as the theories rendered during the same) and the complexities of the relations therein, we have to apparently reconsider the veracity of the said phrase. The point, in our view, is laid in our contemplation of the institution of damages as a remedy for breach which lead us to go beyond the restitution of the aggrieved party’s former status. This is, indeed, the role of economic notions in modern world which enables the similar construes.
Methodology:
During this article and having studied the methods of evaluating the damages caused by non-performance of the obligations in English legal system (as well as exploring the latest studies in this field) and also a number of most reputable international legal instruments such as United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods, Undroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Principles of European Contract Law and Draft Common Frame of Reference, we tried to support a construe under Iranian law which goes beyond the current contemplations regarding the damages.
Results & Discussion:
United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), having considered the methods for valuation of damages in Articles 75 and 76, has also invalidates both the subjective and objective tests in claiming the damages. In other words, the modern world necessitates to even remove the subjective test in the course of appraisal of damages (as referred in Article 76 of CISG). In addition, other major international instruments have almost paved the same path and approved the methods of “buying the goods in replacement” and “current price of the goods”. This point reveals when we come up with Article 7.4.13 of the Undroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (“Unidroit”) and compare the same with Article 230 of IRI Civil Code. Thus, the institution of damages is mainly designed to cover the expectations of the parties before entering into a contract and we can, consequently, come to conclusion that “Restitution Basis”, as a minimal construe of the same, shall stand in exterior of the territory of damages.
Analyzing the economic outcomes of “Restitution”, “Expectation” and “Reliance” methods as well as more recent theories such as “Incomplete Contracts” and “Efficient Breach” (besides the studies based on economic analysis of law during the years of 20th century), with due regard to the necessities of the local market and during the short term at least, we can rely on a justifiable basis like “Expectation”.
Conclusions & Suggestions:
Taking the foregoing into account, we have to remark on a few points as follows:
1) The legislator’s approach to the institution of damages shall be varied at the very first stage so as the efficiency of the contractual liability system be improved (in terms of legal view point and more particularly in terms of economic point of view). Providing a set of certain and practical methods for valuation of damages, empowers the parties to measure the risks (and the scope thereof) and cover the same through the means such as insurance. Accordingly, the proposed techniques by the international instruments are so close to our dominant notions under Iranian (and Fiqhi) framework. Having done the same, the given approach in our system will become more consistent with the prevailing methods in Common Law (realization of “Expectation Basis” as the pioneer ways suggested by the classic division of Fuller and Perdue).
2) Concentration on the criminal feature of the liquidated damages assists us to guide the appetite of the legal system to Expectation and Reliance Basis as the real outcomes of the concept of damages while the Restitution Basis may be analyzed within the area of termination and the consequences thereof.
3) Insofar as we know, the law on adjustment of the contractual terms has a major impact on modern theories raised in this respect. However, even if the re-negotiation of the said terms enables the parties to achieve a sort of post efficiency, this kind of adjustment would certainly damage the former distribution of the contractual risks as considered by the parties in prior. So, in order to design an efficient scheme for the parties, we have to consider (inasmuch as viable) the nature of the given risks and the manner to cover the same. By the way, comparing the effects of such studies with the key notions of the Iranian legal system, the economic impacts of the relevant methods on a progressive economy such as Iran shall not be ignored. That is the reason we propose not to copy the ultra-modern theories such as “Incomplete Contracts” and “Efficient Breach” and focus on the “Expectation Basis”.
 

Keywords

Breach of Contract; Remedy; Damages; Method of Evaluation

References

[1] Principles of International Commercial Contracts. (2015). Akhlaghi, Behrooz & Emam, Farhad (Translated by), Shahre Danesh Publication. (in Persian)

[2] Amid Zanjani, Abbas A. (2003). Stipulators of liability. Mizan Publication. (in Persian)

[3] Ansari, Mehdi. (2011). Theory of Efficient Breach in terms of Economic Analysis of Law’s School. Law Magazine. 41^st series 1^st vol. (in Persian)

[4] Avraham, Ronen & Liu, Zhiyong. (2006). Incomplete Contracts with Asymmetric Information: Exclusive Versus Optional Remedies. Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Law and Economics Association.

[5] Bag, Sugata. (2008). Incomplete Contracts, Self­Investments, Asymmetric Information, Breach of Contract and the Legal Remedies. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1155987.

[6] Bahmani, Mohammad. (2007). Review of Specific Methods for Evaluating Damages with due regard to Articles 75 and 76 of United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods. Free Legal Studies Magazine, 1^st series 1^st vol. (in Persian)

[7] Barnett, Randy E. (2010). The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Contracts. Oxford University Press.

[8] Burrows, Andrew S. (2004). Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract. 3^rd edition: Oxford University Press.

[9] Craswell, Richard. (2000). Against Fuller and Perdue. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 67, No. 1.

[10] David, Rene & Zhoffre-Spinozi, Kamilla. (2016). Introduction to Comparative Law and Two Major Legal Systems in the World Today. Safai, Hoosein (Translated by), 11^th edition, Mizan Publication. (in Persian)

[11] Emmert, Frank. (2012). The Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) - The Most Interesting Development in Contract Law Since the Code Civil and the BGB. Robert H. McKinney School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper (Electronic copy available at: ssrn.com).

[12] Friedman, Daniel. (2001). A Comment on Fuller and Perdue, the Reliance Interest in Contract Damages. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1002.

[13] Fuller, L. L. & Perdue, W. R. (1936). The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages: 1. 46 Yale Law Journal.

[14] Ghassemi, Mohsen. (2005). Compensation of Damages for Breach of Contract under International Sale of Goods Convention and Iranian, French, Egyptian and Lebanese Legal Systems. Legal Magazine, no. 32. (in Persian)

[15] Giliker, Paula. (2013). The Draft Common Frame of Reference and European contract law: moving from the ‘academic’ to the ‘political’. Cambridge University Press.

[16] Gotanda, John Y. (2006). Damages in lieu of Performance because of Breach of Contract. Villanova University, School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, No. 2006-8.

[17] Gotanda, John Y. (2007). Using the Unidroit Principles to Fill Gaps in the CISG. Villanova University Charles Widger Scholl of Law, Working Paper Series.

[18] Hazeri, Javad. (2013). Mitigation of Damages by the Aggrieved Party. 1^st edition, Javdaneh Publication. (in Persian)

[19] Hermann, Donald H. J. (1974). Review of “Economic Analysis of Law” By Richard A. Posner. Washington University Law Review, Volume 1974, Issue 2.

[20] Honnold, J. (1991). Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention. Deventer - Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publisher.

[21] Hosseini Maraghi, Mir Abdolfattah. (1996). Al Anavin Al Feqhia. Qom: Islamic Publications Office. (in Arabic)

[22] Hosseini Modarres, Mehdi & Golshani, Esmat. (2013). Remedy of Damages for Breach of Contractual Obligations in English Legal System and Brining the Matter Up in Iranian Legal System. Civil Law Science Magazine, 2^nd year no. 2. (in Persian)

[23] Iranian Jurisprudence regarding the Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court. (2009). Vol. 56, Jungle Publications. (in Persian)

[24] Judicial Jurisprudence in relation to Public Civil Courts. (2009). Vol. 25, Jungle Publication. (in Persian)

[25] Katouzian, Nasser. (1999). Civil Liability. vol. 1, Tehran University Publication. (in Persian)

[26] Katouzian, Nasser. (2008). General Principles of Contracts. Vol. 4, Sahamie Enteshar Company. (in Persian)

[27] Katouzian, Nasser. (2010). General Theory of Obligations. 5^th edition, Mizan Publication. (in Persian)

[28] Lando, O. & Beale, H. (2000). Principles of European Contract Law. Prepared by the Commission on European Contract Law, Parts I & II.

[29] Mazzacano, Peter. (2013). Damages Under the UN Sale of Goods Convention. Revue Canadienne De Droit International, Vol. 9. No. 2.

[30] Mohaghegh Damad, Seyed Mostafa, Qanavati, Jalil, Vahdati Shobairi, Hasan & Abdipour, Ebrahim. (2013). Contract Law in the Imamieh Jurisprudence. vol. 1, Samt Publications. (in Persian)

[31] Mohaghegh Damad, Seyed Mostafa. (2017). The Rules of Islamic Jurisprudence. vol. 2, Center for Publication of Islamic Sciences. (in Persian)

[32] Movahhed, Mohammad Ali. (2018). Summary of Civil Law. 4^th edition, Tehran: Karnameh Publication. (in Persian)

[33] Posner, Richard. (1998). Economic Analysis of Law. 5^th Edition, New York: Aspen Publishers.

[34] Rickett, C. (edited by). (2008). Justifying Private Law Remedies. Hart Publishing.

[35] Sadeghi, Mohsen. (2004). Means for Compensation of Damages due to Breach of Contractual Obligations under International Sale of Goods Convention. Legal Studies Magazine, no. 5. (in Persian)

[36] Safai, Seyed Hossein & Olfat, Nematollah. (2010). Specific Performance of Obligations and Precedence of which on Termination of Contract. Comparative Law Magazine, 5^th series (16) no. 2 (79). (in Persian)

[37] Safai, Seyed Hossein, Kazemi, Mahmoud, Adel, Morteza & Mirzanezhed, Akbar. (2011). International Sale Law. 3^rd edition, Tehran University Publication. (in Persian)

[38] Safai, Seyed Hossein & Rahimi, Habibollah. (2013). Civil Liability. 5^th edition, Samt Publication. (in Persian)

[39] Safai, Seyed Hossein. (2014). Accumulation of Termination and Damages under International Instruments and Iranian Laws. Commercial Law in Globalization Era (Articles in Appreciation of Dr. Behrooz Akhlaghi), Shahre Danesh Publication. (in Persian)

[40] Safai, Seyed Hossein. (2014). Preliminary Course of Civil Law. vol. 2, Mizan Publication. (in Persian)

[41] Safai, Seyed Hossein & Rahimi, Habibollah. (2018). Comparative Civil Liability. 1^st edition, Shahre Danesh Publication. (in Persian)

[42] Schlechtriem, P. (1998). Commentary on CISG. Translated by Geoffry Thomas: Oxford University Press.

[43] Shahabi, Ali. (2015). Partial Performance of Contractual Obligations, Comparative Study of Contractual Liability in the Iranian and English Legal Systems. Private Law Studies Magazine, 3^rd year no. 5. (in Persian).

[44] Shahidi, Mehdi. (2007). Effects of Contracts and Obligations. 3^rd edition, Majd Publication. (in Persian)

[45] Shavel, S. (2005). Specific Performance versus Damages for Breach of Contract. Harvard University, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business Discussion Paper No. 532.

[46] Shoarian, Ebrahim & Rahimi, Farshad. (2016). International Sale Law (Commentary on International Sale of Goods Convention in light of Doctrine and Judicial Jurisprudence). 2^nd edition, Shahre Danesh Publication. (in Persian)

[47] Treitel, G.H. (2011). The law of Contract. By Edwin Peel, London: Sweet & Maxwell.

[48] Trenor, John A. (Editor) (2016). The Guide to Damages in International Arbitration. (Global Arbitration Review). London: gar.

[49] Triantis, G. (2010). The Evolution of Contract Remedies. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2.

[50] Von Bar, C., Clive, E. & Others (Edited by). (2008). Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law (Draft Common Frame of Reference). sellier. European Law Publishers GmbH.

[51] Zeller, B. (2009). Damages under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. 2^nd Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.