Univerisity of Qom Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law 2476-4213 12 1 2025 03 29 Sanctions for Breach of the Obligation to Refrain from Action: With Reference to Foundational Principles in Jurisprudence, Law, and Judicial Practice Sanctions for Breach of the Obligation to Refrain from Action: With Reference to Foundational Principles in Jurisprudence, Law, and Judicial Practice 237 258 3077 10.22091/csiw.2024.10606.2527 FA Reza Valavioun Assistant Professor, Department of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran. Mohammad Hosseini PhD student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran, Journal Article 2024 04 12 The obligation to refrain from certain actions, due to the binding nature of contracts, is one of the core principles in contract law. The central question of this study is: what are the legal effects and enforcement mechanisms of breaching such obligations in jurisprudential, legal, and judicial contexts? As long as contractual performance remains possible in any form, the obligee cannot request termination, and courts are not authorized to compel the obligor to do so. The annulment of conflicting transactions is not generally provided for in statutory law; however, based on legal standards, where claiming damages is not feasible, annulment may be a more appropriate remedy. In contracts where the obligor is personally required to perform the obligation—and where the obligor has explicitly or implicitly undertaken not to engage in activities for others during the contract term—it is possible to request the annulment of conflicting transactions. Conversely, in contracts where personal performance is not essential, due to the binding nature of contracts and the primacy of performance over other remedies (e.g., compensation or termination), courts should refrain from annulling the conflicting contract if the obligation can still be fulfilled. Among the examined cases, there is only one notable exception: marriage. Due to its significance, public order considerations, and its connection to Sharia, the annulment of a second marriage is not legally permissible.<br /><strong> </strong><br />  The obligation to refrain from certain actions, due to the binding nature of contracts, is one of the core principles in contract law. The central question of this study is: what are the legal effects and enforcement mechanisms of breaching such obligations in jurisprudential, legal, and judicial contexts? As long as contractual performance remains possible in any form, the obligee cannot request termination, and courts are not authorized to compel the obligor to do so. The annulment of conflicting transactions is not generally provided for in statutory law; however, based on legal standards, where claiming damages is not feasible, annulment may be a more appropriate remedy. In contracts where the obligor is personally required to perform the obligation—and where the obligor has explicitly or implicitly undertaken not to engage in activities for others during the contract term—it is possible to request the annulment of conflicting transactions. Conversely, in contracts where personal performance is not essential, due to the binding nature of contracts and the primacy of performance over other remedies (e.g., compensation or termination), courts should refrain from annulling the conflicting contract if the obligation can still be fulfilled. Among the examined cases, there is only one notable exception: marriage. Due to its significance, public order considerations, and its connection to Sharia, the annulment of a second marriage is not legally permissible.<br /><strong> </strong><br />  https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_3077_5e157872f167b70a09cb3b0c86a7296c.pdf