A Comparative Study of the Nature and Effects of the Condition Subsequent in Imamiyyah Jurisprudence and Common Law Legal System

Jafari, Ali; Javanmardi, Zahra

doi:10.22096/law.2024.2015739.2182

A Comparative Study of the Nature and Effects of the Condition Subsequent in Imamiyyah Jurisprudence and Common Law Legal System

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Ali Jafari ¹

Zahra Javanmardi ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

² PhD student in Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Theology, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

10.22096/law.2024.2015739.2182

Abstract

One of the most commonly used conditions in contracts governed by common law is the condition subsequent, which refers to an event or circumstance that, if it occurs, terminates the obligation of one party to the other and creates a strong guarantee of enforcement. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that not only do none of Iran's jurisprudential institutions align or overlap with this condition, but no research can also be found in domestic scientific sources to explain this important condition. However, many of its functions in common law can be considered as a comprehensive individual between the condition of termination and the suspended right of termination in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, and the validity of stipulating such a condition in contracts can be proven based on the validity of these two concepts in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and civil law, supported by general and contractual principles such as the principle of validity and the principle of sovereignty of the will.
The effects of the condition subsequent become clearer through a comparative study of cases, judicial rulings, and analyses by common law jurists. Accordingly, it can be argued that stipulating a condition subsequent in a contract imposes an obligation on the obligated party to take all necessary and reasonable actions to fulfill the condition and maintain the contractual relationship. The consequences of its non-fulfillment, depending on how the condition is stipulated in the contract, the intent of the parties, and the reason for its non-fulfillment, may result in the termination of the contract or the creation of a right of termination for one or both parties.

Keywords

Condition subsequent

Condition precedent

Termination condition

Suspended right of termination

Contractual terms of Common law

Effects of the condition subsequent

Subjects

Comparative Law

Bibliography

Aberfoyle Plantations Ltd v Cheng [1960] AC. 115; (1959) 3 All ER 910.

Barber v Crickett [1958] NZLR 1057 (SC).

Boote v RT Shiels Ltd., [1978] 1 NZLR 445 (CA).

Buhrer v Tweedie [1973] 1 NZLR 517 (SC).
1. Vincent, Steven. “Conditional Contracts and Contractual Conditions in the Law of Vendor and Purchaser.” Auckland University Law Review 5, no. 2 (1985): 206-223.
Civil Law. [In Persian]

Dayani, Abdolrasoul. “The concept of Subsequent condition in French, Islamic and Iranien Law.” Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law 2, no. 4 (September 2019): 236-238. https://doi.org/10.22034/law.2019.239621. [In Persian]

Dayani, Abdolrasoul. Iranian law of contracts. Tehran: Mizan, 2016. [In Persian]

Eastman v Bowis [1962] NZLR 954 (SC).

Ebrahimi, Saeed, Ayoub Mansouri, and Mohammad Bay. “Judicial-Legal Analysis of the Nature of Spontaneous Termination for Contracts.” Journal of Islamic Law & Jurisprudence researches 0, no. 34 (winter 2014): 27-38. [In Persian]

Farsani, Farshad. “Precedent Condition in Legal Acts.” Master's thesis, Qom University, 2007. [In Persian]

Fathi, Mohammad Reza. “Dadname Mostadal dar Khosus e Shart e Fasekh.” Accessed July 14, 2019. www.ekhtebar.com/?p=46967. [In Persian]

Fauvarque-Cosson, Bénédicte. Draft Chapter on Conditional Obligations. Rome: UNIDROIT, 2009.

Frampton v McCully [1976] 1 NZLR 270 (CA).
1. and S. Koikas v. Green Park Construction Pty. Ltd., (I970) V.R. 142.
Hunt v Wilson, [1978] 2 NZLR 261, 267 (CA).

Jafari Langrudi, Mohammad jafar. Dayeratolmaaref e Omumiye Hoghugh. Volume 1 and 2. Tehran: Ganj e Danesh, 2009. [In Persian]

Katouzian, Nasser. Ghavaed e Omumi ye Gharardadha. Volume 3. Tehran: Sherkat e Sahami ye Enteshar, 1992. [In Persian]

Katouzian, Nasser. Iranian civil Law: specific contract. 3rd edition. Volume 3. Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1998. [In Persian]

Lowvelder group. “What are suspensive conditions?” Last modified October 12. 2017. https://lowvelder.co.za/408380/what-are-suspensive-conditions/

Mc Morland, D.W. “A PRACTITIONERS' GUIDE TO CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND SUBSEQUENT.” Auckland Law Faculty Seminar Series 8, no. 3 (1980): 103-127.

Mohaghegh Damad, Seyed Mostafa. Nazariye Omumi ye Shorut va Elzamat dar Hoghugh e Eslami. Tehran: Markaz e Nashr e Olum e Eslami, 2009. [In Persian]

Naghibi, Seyed Abolghasem, and Rasul Makhsusi. “Barasi Tatbighi Shart e Fasekh az Manzar e Feghh Emamiye va Hoghogh e Iran va Mesr.” Journal of Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines 10, no. 16 (September 2017): 105-130. [In Persian]

Najafi, Mohammad Hasan. Javaher Al-kalam fi Sharh e Sharae Al-eslam. Tehran: Darolkotob Aleslamiye, 1989. [In Arabic]

Proksch, Louis. “IN PRAISE OF CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT.” University of Western Australia Law Review 14, no. 4 (1982): 333-353.

Reporoa Stores Limited v Treloar [1958] NZLR177.

Ruhani, Seyed Mohammad. Al-murtaqaa alaa Al-fiqh Al-arqaa Ketab Al-khiyarat. Volume 1. Tehran: Daroljali, 1999. [In Arabic]

Sayyah, Ahmad. Farhang e Bozorg e Jame Novin e Sayyah; Arabi- Farsi- Mosavar. 10th edition, Volume 3. Tehran: Ketabforushi Eslam, 1986. [In Persian]

Shahidi, Mahdi. Hoghughe Madani 3(Asar e Gharardadha va Taahodat). Tehran: Majd, 2010. [In Persian]

Shahidi, Mahdi. Hoghughe Madani 5(Soghut e Taahodat). Tehran: Majd, 2007. [In Persian]

Suttor v. Gundowda Pty. Ltd., (1950), 81 C.L.R. 418.

Tabatabayi Yazdi, Seyyed Mohammad Kazem. Hashiyatolmakaseb. Volume 2. Qom: Esmailiyan, 2000. [In Arabic]

Wex Definitions Team. “Condition Subsequent.” Last modified July 25, 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/condition_subsequent.