چکیده:
AbstractIn Iranian law, the role of Awad in the binding aspects of contracts is not very clear. However, from the inductive study of certain contracts, it is concluded that in most cases, there is a logical relationship between non-compensation and the permissibility of a contract and compensability and the necessity of that contract, which implies a kind of harmony between Iran's legal system and Awad theory. On the other hand, in English law, the contract is generally recognized as valid and enforceable in two ways. The first case is that it is official and sealed, and the second case is that the exchange is its support, since the principle is that the contracts are informal, in English law, the exchange has a decisive role in distinguishing binding contracts from mere promises. Therefore, if the Awad theory is accepted in Iranian law, it can be effective as one of the supplementary rules in interpreting private contracts and determining the obligations of the parties.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Therefore, if the theory of consideration were to be accepted in Iranian law, it could be effective as one of the supplementary rules in interpreting private contracts and determining the obligations of the parties.
In contrast, in English law, the presence or absence of consideration plays a decisive role in the fulfillment or non-existence of contracts, and generally, English courts recognize a contract as binding if the obligation of one party is supported and accompanied by a reciprocal consideration.
Therefore, in the event that the theory of consideration is accepted in Iranian law, it could be effective as one of the supplementary rules in the interpretation of private contracts and the determination of the obligations of the parties.
(Ibid: 106) One of the definitions of consideration, which is very commonly cited, is the definition provided by Judge Lush in the case of Currie * Misa in 1875: «A valid consideration may, in the eyes of the law, consist of a right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or a forbearance, detriment, or liability undertaken by the other party».
(Cartwright: 18) More factors are needed for a case to fall under one of the exceptions: for example, the existence of a relationship in which one party to the contract is able to obtain unfair profit and benefit from the other; the general rule shows that no transaction that is the result of the mutual action of normal forces will be invalid.
(
, 
, 
)
