Based on section 179 of Iranian maritime Act, 1343, if salvage Contract is concluded under the influence of danger or undue influence and its terms are inequitable or if the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by fraud or when the remuneration under the Contract, in proportion to the services, is actually rendered too large or too small, the Contract may be annulled or modified by the court at the request of the party affected. These regulations that have been adopted from section 7 of convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to assistance and salvage at sea, 1910, and because of the accession of Iranian Government to international convention on salvage, 1989, those which have been repeated in section 13 of the Act for granting permission to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for accession to international convention on salvage, 1373, are not so compatible with the principle of being obligatory of Contracts, general regulation pertaining to duress and fraud in Contracts and the prohibition of courts from their Modification.

Background and Aim: One of the conditions that the parties agree on when drafting the Contract is determining the condition of the obligation. The present article seeks to examine the "adjustment of the Contractual obligation in the 2016 French Civil Code. " Materials and Methods: The research method is comparative and the data collection method is documentary-legal analysis. Ethical considerations: The writing of the present article is based on the observance of ethical principles of writing articles, including fidelity in citation. Results: Comparison of previous laws and the amendment of the French Civil Code (2016) is mainly based on compliance and convergence with the international environment is influenced by the phenomenon of globalization in order to be able to modernize it while maintaining the original structure of the civil law. Conclusion: The French legislature seeks to bring Contracts and their obligations into line with European law. In the next step, to ensure equality and observance between the interests of the parties, regardless of market requirements. In this sense, it is a progressive law that other legal systems can take advantage of, taking into account indigenous conditions.

Although arbitration is a Contractual method of dispute settlement but it has a judicial output. This output emerged from imposing the arbitrator's award on disputing parties. The entry of the arbitrator into the arbitration process requires the establishment of a Contractual relationship between him and the parties to the dispute. The agreement which is concluded by the disputers to obligate the arbitrator to settle the dispute is called the "Arbitrator's Contract". This Contract, which is considered less, at least in Iran's law, is the source of the arbitrator entry into the process of arbitration and his intervention in resolving the dispute. According to this Contractual relationship arbitrator obligate to settle the dispute between disputers. In contrast, disputing parties also obligate to pay remuneration. The main practice of this research is to analyze the unknown relationship from the Contract law perspective. An implicit assumption of the issue is twofold, firstly, men of parties in this pattern must be specified and then to check whether the issue and entity or the nature of that correlation can be applicable to the preset Contract forms of civil law or it is a new separate design. Results from the analysis of relationship between arbiter and disputing parties reveals that at least three involved agents must meet the same state of mind on the case, which discusses unraveling issues in return of specified wage and finally this Contract has its own nature and aspect.

The most important principle in concluding a Contract is the possibility of its execution. The discussion of adjustment in the Contractual implementation and the guarantee of its implementation is raised if after the conclusion of the Contract due to reasons that are not attributable to the Contracting parties, its implementation becomes impossible. Obstruction in Contract execution is an important issue in most legal systems such as England, while there are differences regarding this issue.According to Article 229 of the Civil Code of Iran, the obligor is exempted from fulfilling the obligation. However, if due to the occurrence of accidents and changes in the circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the Contract, the execution of the Contract causes excessive difficulty or unusual loss for the obligee, and at the same time the execution of the obligation is not impossible, the law of our country does not provide a clear solution in this case. slowIn this article, we will do a comparative study of the conditions and obligation of the rule of default in Iranian law and the conditions of Contract adjustment in English law and how to implement it and we will state the differences. In fact, the goal of achieving uniform rules based on comparative legal principles will be to create a uniform procedure for judicial courts.

In Contractual relationships, the principle is to preserve and continue Contractual relationships in order to prevent social and economic losses. This is the basis of the concept of "conversion of Contract" analysed by judges by considering the "practical result", that is, economic purposes of the parties within the framework of "social interests". Therefore, the conversion of Contract goes beyond the issue of interpretation, since it is justified on the basis of the "socialization of law" approach. In addition, this theory is not in conflict with Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), because it focuses on the socialization of law at the level of "the purpose of the Contract" and does not seek to regain the basis of the validity of the Contract in the social conscience. Therefore, it has been recognised as a legal rule in Fiqh and Articles 144 and 618 of the Civil Codes of Egypt and Afghanistan. In Iranian legal system, it has not been recognized despite its practical implications. Since, the conversion of Contract has economic and social benefits and is not in conflict with Fiqh, it can be adopted in the Civil Code by putting various instances under one title.

Background and Aim: The global spread of the Qovid 19 virus, described by the World Health Organization on January 31, 2020 as "an international threat and concern" has affected all aspects of contemporary life. In the meantie, several restrictive measures have been taken. It has been done by governments to limit and quarantine, which in turn has affected the implementation of Contracts. Ethical Considerations: Considering whether it is possible to execute the Contracts despite the cases of remaining execution, and only this disease causes problems that they are supposed to do. Method: The main question of the present study, which has been done descriptively-analytically, is what will be the status of Contract implementation as a result of the corona outbreak? Secondly, what are the strategies to manage the implementation of Contracts during the corona outbreak? Results: The result of the present study is that from a legal point of view, the corona outbreak can be adapted to three different doctrines, namely force majeure, frustration and hardship of Contract execution. Since it is still possible to enforce Contracts despite the prevalence of coronation, and only the outbreak of this disease has made it difficult to enforce Contracts, the corona should be more in line with the doctrine of difficulty in enforcing Contracts, or hardship. Conclusion: One of the most effective ways to manage Contract execution during the corona is to modify the Contract.

Terms of Contract, like a private law, are binding on the Contracting parties and none of the parties to a Contract is allowed to alter, modify or amend the terms of Contract without the consent of the other party, even though the law maker or judge cannot adjust the terms or conditions of the concluded Contract. However, it is possible that unpredictable events occur in the course of performing the Contract in a way that require the terms of that Contract to be adjusted or modified in accordance with new desire of the Contracting parties or their economic needs. This situation can be observed more in international Contracts. Sometimes unexpected and unpredictable events may result in economic imbalance of Contract in a manner that full performance of the terms of Contract may bring about windfall profit for one of the Contracting parties and bankruptcy for the other party. For this reason, parties to such Contracts usually prefer to regulate such a situation in advance.In this research while we studied issues around "Hardship" clause through a descriptive - analytical method, and despite the fact that Contracted terms remain intact as obligatory, changes in circumstances which impact he balance of benefits support the loser to invite the other party to refresh talks. Otherwise he is allowed to make arrangement addressing cancellation under special conditions.

This article discusses the cession of Contract. After presenting the definition of cession of Contract, this base on Contractual position and has an independent identity. By dividing the cession of Contract in to executive and judiciary and Contractual, their conditions are investigated.Finally the effects of cession of Contract discussed.

Introduction: Economic analysis of Contractual compensation is amongst the topics, which have been paid attention by the legal and economic scholars. The root of such a serious attention is the conflict of various goals and philosophies of enactment of the Contractual compensation rules. In an economic perspective, the objective of establishment of compensation rules is to compensate for the loss sustained by the injured party rather than to punish the party in breach. This approach will lead to optional performance of Contract, i. e. a free choice between compensation and specific performance. The outcome of such an approach will be that any obligor in any Contract may breach the Contract and pay a compensation for it. Those believing in advantages of further stipulation of moral principles in the Contract Law however do not go with this view. Infringement of Contract may take place for the purpose of making more profit or avoiding further loss. By studying the types of efficient breach of Contract – even in a traditional view to the Contract Law – this logical conclusion can be reached that some types of infringement of Contract are in no contradiction with the spirit of justice and moral principles. Founded on economic analysis, mere performance of Contractual obligations is not considered as the subject of a Contractual relation, but Contractual obligations are considered subject to efficiency and utility. Therefore, the replacement for specific performance that is Contractual compensation may be the subject of Contract and a desirable one. Methodology: Methodology of justification of the “ Theory of Efficient Breach” is based on the laboratory method. The justification is carried out on the basis of some certain and evidentiary data, gathered through studies and reviews in relevant areas. It’ s, however, obvious that stating a legal theory, without comprehensive knowledge of social phenomena is impossible. Therefore, for the purpose of this research, we kept our eyes on legal and economic phenomena, getting organized in front of us. Results & Discussion: Microeconomics, reviews the responses and reactions of the economic players to various factors and motives, and thereby determines which factors will lead to profitable and gainful outcomes. This eventually and consequently enhances the social wealth. In this regard, and in the economic attitude, there is an approach, known as “ homo economic us” , on the basis of which, economic players have a stable and orderly list of preferences, which they reasonably select in order to maximize profit, and determinedly seek their personal interests. This means it’ s assumed that the individuals are wise, and act in a way that will result in reduction of costs and increment of profit. And in case of increment of costs, they select – from the available options – which will cost them less. Hence, “ homo economic us” approach and a logical player won’ t, in the economist pattern, let the personal feelings stop a wealth-making transaction. Therefore, no specific and strong interpretation is required for “ rationality” for the purpose of justification of this essential prediction of economics, which is simply saying: “ the more costly, risky and difficult an option, the less will such an option be picked” . One of the legal institutions, which distinguishably offers a suitable ground for application of economic analysis, with regard to occurrence of economic and profit-seeking aspects, is Contract. In economic analysis of Contract law, a variety of issues of the Contracts are reviewed and studied, but one of the subjects, which strongly attracted the attention of thinkers of both legal and economic areas, is ‘ Contractual damages’ . Maybe the reason for such attention can be traced back in the answer to the question that what is the goal and philosophy of the damages in the Contract law essentially. Taking into consideration the principle of necessity, the main and initial goal of all legal systems in the area of Contract law, is enforcement of Contract. In other words, it can be said that by formulating the rules and regulations on compensations, the legislator aimed originally at codifying a guarantee for compliance with and enforcement of Contracts. Thus, since the necessity principle of Contracts and liabilities has, in all legal systems, been accepted as an obvious principle, it can be stated that the initial objective of guarantees is to prevent breaking the promises and to implement the provisions of the Contracts. The second function of Contractual damages is that in case of violation of the Contract, the promisor should recompense the promise's loss, and place the promise in the situation as if the Contract has been executed. Then, from a traditional point of view, the objective of formulation of Contractual damages, is to punish the party who has violated the Contract, in such a manner that the promisor will be obligated to perform the Contractual liabilities, because according to the moral approach, Contract is a moral promise, therefore, violation of a Contract is considered as a moral fault. In this respect, formulation of Contractual damages can hinder the breach of Contract, which by nature is considered as a moral promise. On the other hand, based on the economic analysis of the law, which assumes the Contract as a means to achieve economic efficiency and to promote the wealth, the aim of Contractual damages, is to compensate the damages resulting from violation of the Contract, rather than to obligate the promisor to perform his/her promise. Therefore, compensation as a remedy for loss is an adequate substitute for specific performance for the damaged party. So, generally either of the parties, having been fully sure of their net profit even after full compensation of the damages to the damaged party, may find withdrawal of the Contract more profitable. On this basis, violation of Contract might economically be profitable, and consequently encouraged by the law. Therefore, on the basis of economic analysis, whenever breach of Contract can lead to more profit or to prevent further loss in comparison with keeping the promise, it should be supported and promoted by the Contract law, because it’ s to the satisfaction of both promise, whose loss has fully been compensated, and promisor, who’ s gaining even more profit. But this thought is unjustifiable for and rejected by a moral approach, which considers the violation of Contract as breaking a promise. Therefore, there is an evident incompatibility between moral-promissory and instrumental approaches towards the Contract law with respect to breach of a Contract. Conclusion and Suggestions: One of the conflicts of instrumental and moral approaches in relation to the Contract law is that whether economic efficiency should be considered as a sole or prevailing goal in the Contract law or such other goals as morality and justice – as traditional goals of law – should still be observed? In other words, which one is more desirable for the parties to a Contract? Concentration on efficiency as a desire and goal in the law, has been paid attention by legal thinkers, especially the economists, and is of thorough and adequate acceptability. As a shortcut, however, it might be better to stop the arguments over whether the objective of law, particularly the law of Contracts, should mostly be founded on economic efficiency or otherwise such goals as morality, justice and fairness; and instead to accept that there is no agreement in this regard. The law may, at the same time, be at the service of both: it can use the resources efficiently and serve the morality and justice as well. In this research, it was intended, while studying the Contractual damages, to explain kinds of efficient breach of Contract and to sort them – as a subject less gone over before; and to determine that in some cases of efficient breach, there is not necessarily any conflict between two mentioned objectives and goals; and instead in most cases, these two are compatible with each other, and what is an efficient economic solution, is in conformity with morality and justice as well. Moreover, in economic analysis of Contractual damages, it is reviewed that whether the Contractual liabilities are substantive in a Contract solely, or such Contractual liabilities may only be considered as peripheral to efficiency and desirability? Concentration on desirability and efficiency would have the advantage that instead of specific performance, a substitute i. e. Contractual damages can be put in the place of the subject and substance of a Contract as well.