A Judicial Discretion in Rrefusing of Specific Performance inIranian and English Law

Although in all known legal systems, obligations are accepted as one of the most common means of transferring property and assets between individuals and in addition to the existence of a moral obligation to fulfill a promise and it, importance in regulating social relations, there is a difference of opinion regarding the legal effects of breach of obligations between several legal systems on the one hand and within each legal system on the other.

The research method in this article was descriptive-analytical.

Ethical Considerations: 

All ethical principles have been followed in writing this article.

Contrary to the rules governing on Iranian law, which in case of breach of an obligation, the main remede is the compelling of promisor to specific performance, in the provisions of multi-layered system of English law, main remede is to pay damages to promisee and compelling the promisor to specific performance is only accepted in exceptional cases.

Although there are fundamental differences in Iranian and English laws regarding how to deal with the breach of obligation by one party, in both legal systems there are cases where, despite the possibility of specific performance in practice, there are solutions for refusing to accept it. In this case, the rules of severe harshness, continuous monitoring, prohibition of coercion in personal services in English law and the rules of no hardship, no harm and prohibition of abuse of rights and Expediency in Iranian law can be cited.