A Comparative Study of the Implementation of the Same Commitment in Iranian and British Law

Abstract

After the conclusion of any contract, the parties are bound by its provisions, this basic principle is recognized in all countries of the world, and any obligations under it are bound by the obligation. But as long as the pledge refuses to fulfill the obligation, world legal systems treat the plaintiff in a number of different ways. In Iranian law it is the rule that when a pledgee refuses to fulfill his obligations, the pledgee has no right to terminate the contract first, but must first go to the court and request the pledgee to execute the pledge, and only if the pledge petitioner It may terminate the Contract at the expense of the pledgee and is not possible by another. As can be seen, in Iranian law, following the jurisprudence of the Imamiyyah, the legislator accepts the obligation to enforce the obligation and exempts it only in exceptional cases. In countries that follow the Common law system, the first priority is compensation and then, in exceptional cases, the obligation to comply with the same obligation has been considered. In the former system, the principle of enforcement was the same, meaning that the courts, by legal means, obliged them to carry out the action that had been committed, and other guarantees of enforcement were subsequently put in place, but over time this system changed. Approaches and adjustments to the laws tended to be the same width with the payment of damages. However, in the face of numerous factors where the relationship between commitment and commitment is altered by the theme of commitment and performance, there are significant developments in legal systems. But there are obstacles and obstacles along the way that make it difficult to implement the same commitment.