Introducing and Criticizing the Doctrine of Election of Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Study in American Law, Islamic Jurisprudence and Law of Iran

In most of the legal systems, the non-breaching party has numerous ways to deal with the breach and its resulting compensation. An important question raised in this case is whether the non-breaching party can choose between the related remedies and select the one which is more beneficial for him. There is a doctrine in American law, known as doctrine of election of remedies, based on which a person not only can but is required to choose one of the available remedies. According to this doctrine, election of a remedy can be final, binding and inalienable, even if, it does not supported by consideration or is not by deed, or even is not relied by the other part. Notwithstanding its precedent in American law, this doctrine has been criticized over the history. Contradictions with justice, differences in judicial procedures, principle of the accumulation of remedies and their changeability as well as lack of independence are among the criticisms. As regards the Imamiyah jurisprudence and Iranian law, it should be stated that on one hand some of the results of the aforementioned doctrine are obtained by similar institutions and foundations, and accordingly there is no need for the doctrine. On the other hand, some of the other results of the doctrine are rejected by the Iranian law and are not acceptable.