perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611120articleMahdieh Rezaeirezai76@gmail.com1Saber Habibi Savadkouhihabib@gmail.com2Behnam GhanbarpourBehnamGhanbarpour@gmail.com3Master's student in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Ghaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ghaemshahr, Iran.Assistant Professor of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.Associate Professor of Jurisprudence and Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Ghaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ghaemshahr, Iran<p>The institution of maintenance (nafaqah) in Iran&rsquo;s legal system, as one of the most important financial obligations of the husband, is grounded in the principles of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Articles 1106 to 1111 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, the expansion of women&rsquo;s employment and their economic participation in both formal and informal spheres over recent decades has raised new questions regarding the relationship between the husband&rsquo;s permission for the wife&rsquo;s employment and the wife&rsquo;s entitlement to, or forfeiture of, maintenance, particularly in cases where the wife&rsquo;s employment is undertaken without the husband&rsquo;s permission or is practically in conflict with the duty of obedience and the interests of the family. The central question is to what extent, within the framework of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iran&rsquo;s Civil Code, a wife&rsquo;s employment, with or without the husband&rsquo;s permission, can affect her entitlement to maintenance, and what solutions existing judicial practice has offered in this regard.The present study, using a descriptive&ndash;analytical method and relying on library-based data (jurisprudential sources, statutes, judicial practice, articles, and theses), seeks first to clarify the jurisprudential foundations governing maintenance, obedience, qiwamah, and the husband&rsquo;s permission, and then, through an analysis of the main provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles 1102, 1105, 1106, 1108, and 1117, as well as family protection laws, to examine the impact of women&rsquo;s employment on the nature and amount of maintenance. The preliminary findings indicate that, in both jurisprudential foundations and Iran&rsquo;s Civil Code, the general principle is that a woman&rsquo;s employment, as an economic status, does not affect her entitlement to maintenance; rather, what may lead to the forfeiture of maintenance is nushuz, understood as the failure to fulfill general and specific marital obedience.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53256Alimony wife's employment husband's permission infidelity obedience Iranian civil law family rights.perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-036112141articleSoheil Deyanti Shalkouhiso@gmail.com1Qasem Qasemi BivarzaniQsam@gmail.com2Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Islamic Theology and Teachings, Department of Islamic Theology and Teachings, Faculty of Humanities, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran.<p>Civil liability of the state in contemporary administrative systems is not limited to the personal fault of government agents and increasingly pertains to structural and organizational deficiencies within the processes of public administration. The central issue of this study is the absence of a coherent and criterion‑based framework for establishing the state&rsquo;s civil liability for structural faults in the Iranian legal system, as well as the dominance of an individual‑centered approach to compensating administrative damages&mdash;a perspective that does not correspond to the complex realities of collective decision‑making, macro‑level policymaking, and institutional performance of the state. A significant portion of the damages suffered by citizens does not stem from the personal error of a specific official, but rather results from weaknesses in oversight mechanisms, inefficiencies in administrative structures, lack of transparency, and defective collective decisions.This research employs an analytical‑descriptive method, drawing upon public law doctrine, domestic regulations, judicial precedents of the Administrative Justice Court, and comparative analysis of selected legal systems. The findings indicate that recognizing the state&rsquo;s civil liability based on structural fault not only facilitates compensation for administrative harms but also promotes administrative justice, enhances institutional accountability, and strengthens public trust. The results further show that mechanisms such as administrative risk management, performance standards, transparency in decision‑making, and oversight of assets and property of public officials play a decisive role in identifying institutional negligence and preventing the continuation of organizational errors. The main innovation of this study lies in presenting an analytical framework for rethinking the state&rsquo;s civil liability based on structural fault, clarifying the criteria for attributing organizational responsibility, and offering specific legislative and judicial recommendations aimed at safeguarding citizens&rsquo; rights and improving the efficiency of Iran&rsquo;s administrative system.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53357Structural Fault Organizational Liability of the State Attributability of Responsibility Guarantee of Rights Administrative Justice No‑Fault Risk Administrative Accountability Institutional TransparencperAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-036114262articleReza Jahanpanahjahanra919@gmail.com1Sayyed Ali Jabbar Golbaghi MasoulehSAJ.Golbaghi@iau.ac.ir2Master of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Humanities, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran.<p>The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1988 Rome Convention are both important legal instruments for combating maritime terrorism and unlawful acts committed at sea. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a global legal framework for the use and management of marine resources as well as for the protection of the marine environment. It also contains several key provisions related to maritime terrorism, including the definition of maritime zones. The Convention specifies how the seas are divided into different areas, such as territorial waters, the exclusive economic zone, and others, and determines the extent of state sovereignty within these zones. This aspect is important for controlling illegal activities such as terrorism. It also imposes obligations on coastal states, requiring them to protect their waters and prevent illegal activities, including terrorism. Finally, through encouraging international cooperation, the Convention motivates member states to collaborate in maintaining maritime security.The 1988 Rome Convention, in turn, specifically addresses maritime terrorism and provides legal mechanisms to combat such acts. These mechanisms include the definition and punishment of offenses: the Convention defines actions that constitute maritime terrorism and prescribes penalties for them. It also sets obligations regarding arrest and prosecution, requiring member states to detain and prosecute individuals accused of committing terrorist acts at sea. Finally, it facilitates cooperation and information exchange among states by establishing frameworks for sharing intelligence related to maritime terrorist threats. Both conventions are of significant importance within the framework of international law for combating maritime terrorism. While the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea serves as a general framework for governing the seas and preventing unlawful acts, the 1988 Rome Convention functions as a specialized instrument designed to address maritime terrorism specifically. Together, they help states ensure maritime security and protect their interests at sea.The two threats of maritime terrorism and piracy have had the most severe impacts on maritime security and on the fundamental rights of citizens, at times even reaching the level of crisis. Governments and the international community have long recognized the seriousness of these two phenomena and have sought to confront them. Since the 1990s, important conventions among states have been adopted to identify these challenges and to recognize the judicial authority of states to prosecute offenders. Meanwhile, international and regional organizations have also taken significant actions to combat these phenomena, efforts that have contributed considerably to their reduction. The article concludes that, for the effective fight against maritime terrorism, it is necessary to strengthen these conventions to allow for preventive measures, prosecution and punishment of offenders, and the resolution of potential conflicts with the rules of international law of the sea.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53261Maritime terrorism maritime security International Maritime Organization 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea 1988 Rome ConventionperAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-036116379articleNegin Bani NoorNeginbaninour327@gmail.com1yasaman yaghobiyaghobiyasaman@yahoo.com2Ambar Dwi ErawatiAmbarErawati@gmail.com3Master of Private Law, Law Department, Ahrar Higher Education Institute, Rasht, Iran Associate Professor of Educational Management, Department of Nursing, Shahid Beheshti School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.Master of Science in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Widya Husada Semarang University, Semarang, Indonesia.<p>The increasing complexity of medical services and the expansion of medical interventions in recent decades, along with the rising awareness of patients regarding their rights, have led to a significant growth in lawsuits arising from medical errors. In this context, the "compensation system," as a fundamental pillar supporting the aggrieved, plays a decisive role in achieving restorative justice and guaranteeing patients' rights. However, an examination of the existing regulations in Iranian law reveals that the compensation system for medical errors faces numerous challenges and legal gaps, including ambiguity in the standard for identifying a medical error, difficulty in proving fault and causality, limitations in fully compensating for incurred damages (especially non-pecuniary damages), and the inefficiency of certain support mechanisms such as professional liability insurance for physicians. This article, with a descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to analyze the compensation system for medical errors in Iranian law and identify the most significant legal gaps in this area, attempting to provide legislative and procedural solutions to enhance the effectiveness of the compensation system and more effectively support patients' rights.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53262Medical error compensation physician's civil liability patient rights Iranian lawperAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-0361180116articleNarjes Khan Valin.khanvali@yahoo.com1Vahid Zarai SharifVa.zarei@iau.ac.ir2Master's degree student in private law, Law Department, Ahrar Higher Education Institute, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Humanities, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran.<p>Off-plan building sale, as a key instrument in the Iranian housing market, is accompanied by numerous legal challenges. This article, using a descriptive-analytical approach, provides a legal analysis of the contractual and tort liabilities of the developer (builder) and the owner toward buyers of pre-sold units within the framework of construction partnership agreements. Relying on the sources of the Civil Code, the Off-Plan Building Sales Act ratified in 2010 (1389), and the Civil Liability Act, this study indicates that the developer's liability primarily concerns the technical and construction execution obligations (building quality, adherence to safety standards, and timely delivery), while the owner's liability is more related to the legal and registration aspects (securing land ownership, preventing disputes, and formal transfer of ownership). However, in cases of damages resulting from a combination of factors, judicial practice tends to accept joint and several liability between the owner and the developer to provide more effective protection for buyers (as the weaker party to the transaction). The fundamental distinction between contractual liability (which can be limited based on the principle of freedom of contract) and tort liability (which cannot be waived and is based on the principle of full compensation) highlights the complementary and protective role of tort liability, especially in cases of latent defects or personal injuries. The findings reveal existing ambiguities in the scope of liabilities, the effects of terminating the partnership contract on prior pre-sales, and the protective gaps in the Off-Plan Building Sales Act, justifying the necessity for legislative review. Finally, practical solutions for reducing litigation and proposed amendments to the Off-Plan Sales Act are presented to increase transactional security and strengthen the protection of buyers' rights.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53263Off-plan building sale contractual liability tort liability construction partnership agreement joint and several liability perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611117131article Fatemeh Rasekhi nejad faemehrasekhinejad@gmail.com1Ataollah Esmaeiliesssmaeeli@gmail.com2Mostafa Khazal Vashikhazalvashi@gmail.com3Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Jurisprudence and Islamic Sciences, Department of Quranic and Hadith Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.Faculty Member in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.<p>The rapid evolution of communication and information technologies in recent decades has fundamentally transformed the traditional structure of legal relations, particularly the methods of contract formation. Electronic contracts, as one of the most significant manifestations of this transformation, now play a pivotal role in economic, commercial, and even administrative interactions. With the widespread adoption of digital platforms, a critical question arises: do contracts concluded through electronic instruments possess the same binding force and validity as traditional contracts?The primary objective of this research is to examine the binding nature of electronic contracts, relying on the principle of the binding force of contracts (Pacta Sunt Servanda) within Shia jurisprudence and the statutory law of Iran. Using a descriptive-analytical method and based on a review of authoritative library sources&mdash;including legal texts, jurisprudential works, applicable laws, and the theories of prominent jurists&mdash;this study investigates the legal framework surrounding these contracts.The findings indicate that, from the perspective of Shia jurisprudence, the validity and binding nature of a contract depend on the mutual intention and consent of the parties, regardless of whether the instrument of conclusion is traditional or electronic. Furthermore, Iranian law, particularly the Electronic Commerce Act of 2004 (1382 SH), provides the necessary legal foundation for the validity and enforceability of electronic contracts by recognizing "data messages" and electronic signatures. However, challenges remain, including the evidentiary burden of proving the parties' intent, data security concerns, and inconsistencies in judicial practice.In conclusion, this research affirms that the principle of the binding force of contracts applies to electronic contracts and offers recommendations for strengthening the enforcement mechanisms to ensure their legal security and reliability.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53264Principle of Binding Force of Contracts Electronic Contract Shia Jurisprudence Iranian Law Electronic Commerce Electronic Signature Data Message perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611132151article Mehrangiz RakabdarMehrangiz.rekabdar@gmail.com1Kazem Khosravikazzzemikho@yahoo.com2Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.<p>Digital mental health of children has become one of the fundamental challenges for legal systems and policy-making in recent decades. The proliferation of digital technologies and the significant presence of children and adolescents in online spaces have further intensified the importance of parental responsibility in ensuring their digital mental well-being. Using a descriptive-analytical method and based on document analysis, this paper examines the existing preventive policies in Iranian law and analyzes their effectiveness in mitigating psychological harms caused by cyberspace. The findings indicate that while higher-level documents and existing laws have sporadically addressed the role of parents and the necessity of protecting children online, no coherent and systematic framework based on a digital mental health approach has yet been established. The novelty of this research lies in proposing a three-dimensional model (legal, institutional, and cultural) to elucidate parental responsibility in this domain, along with legislative and institutional reform recommendations. The effectiveness of preventive policies necessitates designing a coordinated system among families, legislation, protective institutions, and technology to, while enhancing parental media literacy, prevent digital psychological harms in children and adolescents. Finally, the study offers solutions to enhance parental accountability and strengthen preventive policies.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53265Preventive Policies in Iranian Law Digital Parenting Parental Responsibility in Cyberspace Children's Digital Mental Health Right to Mental Health.perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611152170articleAlireza Ghorbani Ziksarialirezaqorbani262@gmail.com1Amin Najafianna@yahoo.com2Fatemeh Shadhanshadhan@yahoo.com3Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Mahallati Islamic Sciences University, Qom, Iran.Faculty Member in Public International Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.<p>With the rapid advancement of generative AI technologies, traditional intellectual property (IP) systems face unprecedented and significant challenges. Works produced by these systems, often created without direct human intervention or conscious creativity, have generated ambiguities regarding the determination of authorship, the originality of the work, and the scope of legal protection. The significance of this issue has become increasingly apparent, given the swift growth of the technology and its widespread application in content creation and scientific and industrial innovation. This study aims to examine the dimensions of intellectual property in the face of generative AI and to review the legal foundations concerning the protection of such works.The research methodology is analytical, descriptive, and comparative. Data were gathered through a review of domestic and foreign literature, scientific articles, conference papers, and legal documents, and were then analyzed using a conceptual framework. The findings indicate that traditional IP systems, particularly in the realms of copyright and patent law, are ineffective when confronted with autonomous AI-generated works. Works produced without human intervention typically do not qualify for legal protection, and traditional criteria of authorship and originality require redefinition. Furthermore, the necessity of establishing a clear legal framework for attributing rights and defining the scope of protection has been highlighted, alongside the need for comparative policy-making and alignment with emerging technologies.The study emphasizes the importance of creating a specific legal framework for generative AI works, redefining key IP concepts, and designing a hybrid or conditional legal system. This research provides the necessary groundwork for developing future legal policies and research in the fields of intellectual property and artificial intelligence.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53266Intellectual Property Generative AI Copyright Legal Review Authorship Originality of Work.perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611171190articleMina Javadi Moghadamshimamoghadam0610@gmail.com1Mehdi Haghighatjuhaghihjta@yahoo.com2Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran.<p>Civil liability in employer-employee relationships is of paramount importance. This relationship is defined such that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Labor Law, the employee agrees to work under the supervision of the employer for wages, while the employer, in compliance with Article 3 of the Labor Law, must pay the employee's wages for their activities. During the execution of this relationship, accidents may occur causing damage and losses to both parties or even to third parties. Therefore, each party bears certain liabilities, which this research addresses using a library-based tool and a descriptive-analytical method.The findings indicate that in cases of damages inflicted upon workers due to workplace accidents, the employer is liable to compensate the worker. Consequently, in accordance with Article 148 of the Labor Law and based on the Social Security Law, the employer must insure the workers in their unit. This ensures that if any damages occur to the worker during the job, compensation will be provided through insurance.Regarding damages caused by workers to third parties during the performance of their duties, in accordance with Article 12 of the Civil Liability Law, the employer is liable to compensate the third party. However, if the employer can prove the conditions of "non-negligence" stipulated in the same article, they may seek recourse against the worker responsible for the damage.It should be noted that while the Iranian legislator has clarified the employer's liability in various laws, they have not explicitly addressed the type of liability of the worker. References to the worker's liability appear only in Article 95 of the Labor Law and Article 12 of the Civil Liability Law.Article 95 of the Labor Law places the responsibility for implementing technical and occupational health and safety regulations on the employer. However, if the employer provides the necessary equipment and facilities for technical and occupational protection to the worker, and despite receiving necessary training and prior warnings, the worker fails to use them in accordance with existing instructions and regulations, the employer shall bear no liability, and the worker becomes responsible for compensating the damages incurred.Additionally, Article 12 of the Civil Liability Law addresses the liability arising from the worker's negligence towards the employer regarding damages inflicted on third parties.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53267Civil Liability Employer-Employee Relationship Employer Employee Third Party Negligence Compensation for Damages Workplace Accidents perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611191203article Esmail Shirzad esmaeil.shirzad71@gmail.com1Fatemeh MahdaviF@GMAIL.COM2Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Address: Assistant Professor of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Department of Theology, Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Humanities, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran.<p>The established jurisprudential, legal, and customary rules hold that Tamkin (compliance) is one of the core concepts in Iranian Family Law, always accompanied by enforcement mechanisms such as the forfeiture of maintenance (nafaqah) and the possibility of judicial compulsion. This enforcement, rooted in Twelver Shia jurisprudence, is based on a relative understanding of the roles and duties of spouses, which contrasts with the concept of individual independence, a notion directly linked to will, choice, and human dignity.The present research, adopting an analytical-critical approach, re-examines the damages resulting from non-compliance (Adam-e Tamkin) in light of individual independence. It hypothesizes that non-compliance is not always a breach of marital duty and can, in certain cases, manifest as the exercise of the legitimate right to individual independence. The study further points out that, in addition to the dichotomous model of non-compliance, it serves to clarify the distinction between rights and duties, indicating that integrating compliance as an absolute duty does not preclude individual independence.This research investigates the boundary between individual independence and marital obligations, emphasizing the damages arising from non-compliance within Iranian Family Law. The objective of the research is to analyze the conflict between the rights of the spouses and the legal obligations stemming from marriage. The findings are based on descriptive-analytical study utilizing library resources and scholarly articles. The findings suggest that the Iranian legal system, when dealing with non-compliance, adopts a more duty-centric approach and pays less attention to individual independence.The research conclusion indicates the necessity of revisiting the concept of compliance and its resulting damages with a balanced and human-centered approach. From a legal perspective, marriage is not merely an emotional and ethical bond but a legal institution with binding effects and consequences that regulate the mutual rights and duties of the spouses. However, the interpretation of these duties should not lead to the disregard of the independent personality and free will of either party. In contemporary family law, attention has been drawn to the balance between the individual rights of spouses and the obligations arising from shared life, as a criterion for achieving family justice. Within this framework, the concept of compliance should not be perceived solely as an inflexible duty but must be interpreted in light of the social circumstances of the spouses.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53268Compliance Human Dignity Non-compliance Individual Independence Damages Due to Non-compliance Family LawperAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611204224articleSeyedeh Zahra Hosseinihoseinimahla954@gmail.com1Afshin Ghafghazighafghazi@yahoo.com2Student of Master’s Degree in Private Law, Department of Law, Ahrar Institute of Higher Education, Rasht, Iran.Assistant Professor of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.<p>The right of annulment for excessive gain, as one of the expressly recognized options in Iranian civil law, is an important protective mechanism for establishing transactional justice and addressing gross imbalance in the value of reciprocal performances. The main question of this research is the position of the right of annulment for excessive gain in pre‑sale building contracts, considering the specific and staged nature of these contracts, in terms of its validity, scope, effects, and manner of enforcement. Using a descriptive&ndash;analytical method and relying on statutory sources and judicial practice, the study shows that, from the perspective of the general rules of contracts and pursuant to Articles 416 to 421 of the Civil Code, the principle of the validity of the right of annulment for excessive gain in pre‑sale contracts is accepted, unless the parties have waived it in the pre‑sale agreement or the nature of the contract and ordinary fluctuations in the housing market reduce the gain from gross to ordinary. The Pre‑Sale of Buildings Act of 2011 and the requirement of executing an official deed (Articles 1 and 3) do not prevent the application of the right of annulment for excessive gain; rather, they primarily concern formalities and the Guarantee of transparency. In terms of effects, the most important consequence of the occurrence of excessive gain is the establishment of the right of rescission for the aggrieved party, subject to observance of customary promptness in exercising the option. At the same time, the challenges in applying this option in this field include determining the time for assessing excessive gain in pre‑sale building contracts. These challenges can be addressed through a prudent acceptance of the right of annulment for excessive gain, together with a restrictive interpretation of general exceptions and the development of the doctrine of contractual equilibrium.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53269Right of Annulment for Excessive Gain Pre‑Sale of Buildings Contractual Imbalance Rescission Price Adjustment Commutative Contracts.perAhrar Higher Education Instituteدوفصلنامه پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار2821-27032821-27032026-03611225247articleMohsen Pour Ali mo@yahoo.com1Reza Maghsoudirmaghsoody@yahoo.com2Master’s student in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.Associate Professor of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.<p>Fraudulent misrepresentation, as a factor that vitiates consent, holds a significant position in contract law, and its remedy in the legal systems of Iran [absolutely] and England [generally] is the granting of the right of rescission to the deceived party. However, the issue of whether the effects of misrepresentation can be limited or waived through the inclusion of an exemption clause in the contract is considered a challenging matter in Iranian law; this is because the dominant view among legal scholars is based on the absolute invalidity of such a clause, regarding it as contrary to public order, good morals, and the principle of good faith in agreements. In contrast, English law, while recognizing the principle of protecting the deceived party as a general rule, has adopted a more flexible approach and, in limited cases where the element of fraud and deception is absent and the negligence is excusable, has accepted the validity of exemption clauses upon satisfying the criterion of &ldquo;reasonableness.&rdquo; It appears that although in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation the effectiveness of any clause excluding or limiting liability is inconsistent with the philosophy of protecting the integrity of transactions, in the absence of bad faith&mdash;particularly in relationships between professional parties and where the clause has been included with the awareness of both parties and within the framework of a rational allocation of risk&mdash;the validity of such a clause may also be accepted in Iranian law. This conclusion may be supported by drawing inspiration from the reasonableness criterion in English law and relying on the principles of contractual freedom, the presumption of validity, and the general provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code, which does not exclude the waiver of the option of rescission for misrepresentation. Such an approach, while preserving protection for the deceived party, appears more compatible with the economic and commercial requirements of contemporary transactions.</p>http://ahrarlawjournal.ir/Article/53353Fraudulent Misrepresentation Exemption Clause Freedom of Contract Reasonableness Standard