Rasool Bahrampoori; Javad Khodadadi
Abstract
Validity of penalty clause in monetary obligations has always been a controversial issue in the Iranian legal system. Due to the exposure of institutions such as the Constitutional Council and the Expediency Discernment Council to the damage of late payment, despite the adoption of laws such as the Code ...
Read More
Validity of penalty clause in monetary obligations has always been a controversial issue in the Iranian legal system. Due to the exposure of institutions such as the Constitutional Council and the Expediency Discernment Council to the damage of late payment, despite the adoption of laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure this question still remains in the Iranian legal system and it is asked the parties can claim a sum in excess of the annual rate of the Central Bank as a fixed sum, based on the contractual terms? General Assembly of the Supreme Court's Unified Judicial Precedent No. 805 has considered the permission of this matter subject to its non-contradiction with the imperative laws and regulations and the present study with an analytical-descriptive method in order to answer above question, by examining evolutions regarding the damages of late payment in the Iranian legal system, state three jurisprudential, legal and economic analyzes and it has proved that accepting the validity of any amount of contractual obligation in monetary obligations can't be deduced not only from the text of the relevant laws and regulations but in addition to conflict with the law, has many adverse economic effects and exposes the agreement to the suspicion of usury.
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.