mohamad hassan sadegimoghdam; javad shiekhe
Abstract
In Iranian and American law, Restitution; as the most important effect of rescission, has been determined similarly antecedent to rescission. In iranian law, first, islamic lawyers has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution and analyzed their effects while in American legal system, due ...
Read More
In Iranian and American law, Restitution; as the most important effect of rescission, has been determined similarly antecedent to rescission. In iranian law, first, islamic lawyers has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution and analyzed their effects while in American legal system, due to some problems and lack of unified judicial procedure, lawyers and some theorists in last years has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution. Moreover, rescission has based on two theories in iranian legal system; Bilateral Consent and Do No Harm (LA ZARAR). In the other hand, American legal system has been based on unjust enrichment theory. In this article, first, the process of recognition of the right in two legal systems has inspected and later, the base of rescission has compared between two legal systems. The process in two legal systems (although the process in American law has happened with a long historical distance) demonstrate that due to lack of coherent theory about rescission and thereupon lack of unified Judicial procedure in common law, law theorist coming close to general theory of rescission in written legal systems
