A comparative Look at the Possibility of Choosing the System Governing Responsibility by the Injured Party in Islamic Jurisprudence, the Laws of Iran, Egypt and Iraq

There are different views on the possibility of choosing the rules governing liability, meaning that the injured party has the right to choose between the rules of contractual or compulsory liability to claim damages. Given the reliance of Imami jurists on the rules of compulsory warranty in cases of contractual violations, they can be considered supporters of the view of the right to choose. In Iranian law, as a general principle, there is no prohibition on the injured party choosing the basis of liability to prove his right because it does not contradict the will of the legislator and public order. There is a difference in Sunni jurisprudence, but in Egyptian law; considering that the nature and scope of each liability are discussed separately and special conditions are prescribed for claiming compensation based on each liability, this legal system can be considered to have no right to choose. The Iraqi legislator has also denied the claimant the right to choose the rules of liability and has only considered the will of the parties to determine the type of liability - which is the contract - as valid. This research, relying on the descriptive-analytical method, believes that by accepting the possibility of choosing the rules of liability; The selection of the governing rules - in addition to balancing the contractual agreement, justice in the distribution of contractual wealth, ensuring the economic security of the people in the context of transactions, and avoiding any instrumental view of the contract to gain undue benefits - is in accordance with the goal of the science of law, which is to maintain legal order and security in society and is based on justice and fairness in contracts. due to uncertainty Wise people do not enter into a contract that demands a gross loss and does not have the means to demand it.