خلاصة:
According to the Civil Code of Iran, non-contractual obligations include 5 cases, which are: 1- Unjust enrichment, 2- Usurpation and what is considered as usurpation, 3- Destruction (Atlaf), 4- Causation (Tasbib), 5- Receipt (Istifa). The term 'non-contractual obligations' refers to the plural of 'obligation,' which literally means making something mandatory or necessary for someone, and in legal terminology, it refers to the obligation to pay money or perform an act without said obligation arising from the mutual consent of the parties or a contract. In Turkish law, non-contractual obligations are considered under three general headings: 'tort liability,' 'strict liability,' and 'liability arising from lawful and legal intervention,' and legal regulations have been established for each of the above headings. Although the legal system of Turkey accepts compensation for material and moral damages, in all cases where it has ruled for compensation for material or moral damages, cash payment has mostly been intended as compensation. By comparing and matching the legal articles governing the subject of compensating the aggrieved party and the various methods of compensation in the two legal systems of this research, the legal system of Iran has a more desirable status in terms of comprehensiveness and inclusivity compared to Turkish law, given that Islamic jurisprudence and law, as one of the sources of Iranian law, has received less attention in Turkish law compared to Iranian law. The results show that the general principles, objectives, and methods of compensating loss and damage in non-contractual obligations in Iranian and Turkish law are more or less identical and close to each other.
ملخص الجهاز:
Research Background: Research Background in Iranian Law Bagherzadeh (1998), in his thesis titled "Methods of Compensation for Damages in Extra-Contractual Civil Liability," while addressing compensation as the ultimate goal of the rules of civil liability, studied effective and appropriate methods of compensation for current conditions and examined the existing possibilities in legal and jurisprudential texts to find the best ways to restore the previous state of the injured party, as well as considering payment of an equivalent as the only way of compensation in the event that returning the original property is impossible.
4- Yeliz Karan (2010), in another article titled "Comparison of Liability Arising from Quasi-Delict with Liability Arising from Contract," has examined and presented the cases of difference and similarity between these two types of liability and finally defined and clarified the above liabilities from the perspective of rulings that are favorable to the state of the injured party and concluded: For the injured party in Turkish law, relying on rulings contrary to obligation is more desirable and beneficial than relying on rulings of liability arising from contract; in other words, if the harmful act or action possesses both the conditions for the realization of liability arising from contract and quasi-delict liability simultaneously.
If the breach of duty and the resulting harm can be attributed to the perpetrator, civil liability is created; however, if there is negligence or action by the obligee or the injured party, or if sufficient and effective warning has been given to the injured party, or if the cause of the damage acted in good faith and intended to do good, or if non-liability was stipulated, the obligor shall be exempt from liability.
(
, 
, 
)
