Criticizing the Theory of the Commitment Rulings’ Being Injunctive in the Contractual Obligations

Although the subject “commitments’ being injunctive or situational” has been posited and investigated in the jurisprudential resources with a lot of seriousness, this aspect of the commitments has been neglected in most of the works by jurists. Important legal effects such as non-inheritance in the injunctive rulings, lack of materiality of these rulings, impossibility of conveyance and/or abortion of the rights related to the injunctive rulings have caused some jurists to recently start dealing with this domain and, relying on the jurisprudents’ verdicts, conclude that injunctive rulings exist in the laws of Iran. The authors have investigated the nature and effects of the injunctive rulings and analyzed the reasons presented by the proponents and opponents of the existence of the injunctive rulings in the laws of commitments and concluded that there is no purely injunctive ruling in many questioned examples, including the contractual obligations and extra contractual requirements and one can believe in the existence of the situational ruling for demand right at least for the obligee. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to identify the various kinds of commitments in the contractual obligations and to investigate the course of purely injunctive ruling in each of them separately. Considering the fundamentality of the proposed introductions, the results obtained in the area of the contractual commitments can be also generalized to the extra contractual requirements, as well. Undoubtedly, the understanding of the type of the commitments’ rulings is effective in the identification of their effects and also useful in delimiting the laws of properties and laws of commitments.