Sayed Mohammad Hassan Malaekehpour Shoushtari; mohsen alijani
Abstract
AbstractAlthough the provision of the penalty clause in monetary obligations is common, its promotion has not made its nature and rules acceptable to lawyers without any difference. According to the essence of these obligations, the root of the disputes goes back to the nature of money and the sanctity ...
Read More
AbstractAlthough the provision of the penalty clause in monetary obligations is common, its promotion has not made its nature and rules acceptable to lawyers without any difference. According to the essence of these obligations, the root of the disputes goes back to the nature of money and the sanctity of loan usury. While the need for new banking has led the legislature to allow for claiming the excess of the amounts paid in the usury-free banking law under certain conditions, disputes over the permission to the provision of such conditions have persisted in other cases. The disagreements have caused the divergence of courts so that the Supreme Court, in line with its duties, issued the procedural unity verdict no. 805. The present study used a descriptive-analytical research method to examine the penalty clause in monetary obligations by analyzing the procedural unity verdict no. 805 of the Supreme Court and relying on judicial procedure. The results show that the penalty clause is valid even if it is higher than the inflation rate.
