A comparative study of judge authority in adjustment contracts in the Iranian and French laws

Abstract

The principle of stability and firmness of contracts has been recognized in laws of obligations as a general rule. Undoubtedly, principle of intention dominance and the rule of adherence of contract from common intention require that compromise provisions always be respected and needed-to-meet and none of the two parties cannot defy from provision contract and due obligations or capture the territory of common will or theater the terms of the contract. In investigating the limits the contractual freedom principle, the judge authority in juridical moderation of contract, is along with forging this authority for the judge which if required after attaining qualifications to change the situation and conditions of the contract, the purpose of this balance and fairness and uniformity in terms of its contractual obligations after making changes to the terms of modifications to the Amendment Agreement. Articles 277 and 652 of the Civil Code of Iran in the format of granting juridical date and the division of judicial enforcement of the obligation, the possibility to intervene in contract by judge are anticipated. But the issue of judge’s authority to modify the contract is not stated directly. weather a comparative study of different countries in the admitting this subject, and by taking a principled and juratory rules-based solutions, fill this legal gap and by proposing passing appropriate laws, we give judge the authority to modify the contract and provide the possibility to fulfill long-term contracts that have not been implemented due to unpredictable events, or faced with an obstacle.