نوع مقاله : علمی و پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم. ایران.
چکیده
تازه های تحقیق
از بررسی مفهوم و اقسام خسارت در حقوق ایران، فقه اسلامی و حقوق کامنلا این نتیجه حاصل شده است که؛
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The proof of legally cognisable damage remains a foundational pillar for the establishment of both tortious and contractual liability. A claimant seeking reparation must adduce credible evidence to substantiate three essential elements: the occurrence and nature of the damage suffered, the wrongful act or omission or breach of contractual obligation giving rise to the claim, and the causal nexus between the defendant's conduct and the loss sustained. Nevertheless, persistent ambiguity surrounding the concept, scope, and classification of damage, particularly within the Iranian legal system, has, in practice, generated significant challenges in the proof of this essential element, thereby undermining the effective protection of injured parties' rights. Adopting a comparative approach, this article examines the concept and categories of damage in three legal systems, Iranian law, Imāmī jurisprudence, and the common law, employing a descriptive-analytical methodology to identify the principal points of convergence and divergence and to advance recommendations for the refinement of the legal framework governing damages in Iranian law. The study finds that, in none of the three systems, has a formal statutory definition of damage been enacted, each having largely confined itself to the enumeration of particular instances. The scholarly definitions that have been proposed converge upon the recognition that damage is a broad, multi-dimensional, and inherently flexible concept, capable of encompassing both material losses, such as the destruction of property or the loss of an accrued benefit, and non-pecuniary losses, such as injury to reputation, dignity, feelings, or the deprivation of legitimate opportunities. In Iranian law, the concept has predominantly been confined to tangible and present financial losses, and the categories thereof are set out in an unsystematic fashion across a disparate array of statutes, resulting in persistent uncertainty regarding the compensability of non-pecuniary harm, future losses, and losses arising from the loss of an opportunity. In Imāmī jurisprudence, although foundational principles such as the rule prohibiting the infliction of harm, causation, and direct destruction form the doctrinal substratum for compensation, theoretical fragmentation has precluded the extraction of a uniform concept. In the common law, by contrast, the concept has been elaborated in a considerably more comprehensive and systematic manner, with express recognition of a wide spectrum of damage types and a sophisticated classification of compensatory remedies. The study concludes that the Iranian legislature should enact a comprehensive statutory definition of damage, accompanied by a clear enumeration of its principal categories, in order to harmonise jurisprudential theory with the statutory framework, to enhance the coherence of judicial practice, and to ensure more effective protection for injured parties in both civil and contractual claims.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله