Abstract

After the conclusion of contract its parties are obliged to perform their contract. If one of the contract parties does not enforce it by some reasons, the other party has the right to bind him to perform the contract. In some cases the non-performance of obligation is not based to the denial of obligator. In English Law, an idea under the title of discharge by frustration has been devoted to this issue and other reasons have been enumerated for it. In this between, Sometimes without the performance of contract is unenforceable, the conditions come into existence which the parties purpose of conclusion of contract are affected and the performance of contract for one or two parties become useless. In this case, the performance of contract is not encountered physically and legally with problem, but the parties intention of conclusion of contract is not within reach anymore. This issue has been set forth for discussion under the title of frustration of purpose and it is a part of the theory of discharge by frustration. In Iranian law, such a theory has not been recognized, but considering some articles of the Civil Code including articles 480,527,551 which seem the bases of this theory are rooted in them, one could believe in this theory in Iranian Law. In this article we intended with the use of reliable sources to have a deliberation in the concept and bases of frustration of purpose doctrine in Iranian and English law.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.