Comparison of Contractual Liability Patterns in the British Legal System and the Iranian Legal System

Abstract

No part of society can elude legitimate occasions. Some of the time, eagerly or unwillingly, another is hurt, and the issue of hurtful obligation or how to compensate is raised by others. The rules and controls of each nation or other nations may be distinctive, and the way of demonstrating obligation and its components and the approach of the courts in deciding the sum of harms may moreover be diverse. Since the legitimate British framework is to some degree diverse from the legitimate Iranian framework, it appears valuable to know the sees of this framework. The think about of these likenesses and contrasts, counting the way of sanctioning laws, their modification, the way of the trial of courts and the limits of duties and the way of execution of judgments, raises numerous scores and gives other viewpoints for analysts to be utilized in tackling issues in society. The article presented attempts to clarify the perspective of the UK legal framework and compare it with the Iranian legal framework in terms of designing respectful risks within the contract to realize the over the result. All legitimate frameworks look for a full stipend. In this respect, due to the reality that the strategy of remuneration among other remuneration strategies within the UK, the legitimate framework of this nation has set exact criteria based on which the assurance of full emolument. It is more standard and precise. Iranian law is generally appropriate on the issue of damages. This can occur despite the fact that the refusal of the rule of the presence of a way of a stipend in infringement of legally binding commitments has not been considered with assurance.