Document Type : Scientific Research
Author
Ph.D. of Private Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
In this article, according to the principle of freedom of will and support for the agreement of the parties, a comparative analysis of the liquidated damages clause on the mitigation of damages has been done. Analysis the mitigation in Iranian law shows that enforcing the rule, contrary to the US legal system, is not explicitly accepted in the realm of contracts. On the other hand, according to the principle of freedom and sovereignty of the will, the parties can determine and condition the damages resulting from non-fulfillment of the obligation on a lump sum basis together. Because the plaintiff will receive the agreed amount without the need to prove the amount of damages.. According to which the injured party is obliged to take any normal action to mitigate, the damages and prevent the spread or entry the loss. Otherwise, he will not be entitled to claim all damages. inIrananian and American law, it is possible for a judge to adjust the liquidated damages clause. So mitigation is different between them. It does not interfere with normal behavior. One of the important rules of compensation is the rule of mitigation
Keywords
Main Subjects
)