چکیده:
There is a possibility of breach of contract by either party. If this possibility is slight and customary, it holds no significance. However, if the aforementioned possibility becomes strong and there are reasons for its occurrence in the future, the law cannot remain indifferent to it. If the possibility of breaching the contract reaches the level of a predominant suspicion, it justifies an option (Khiyar); however, if the circumstances are not such that it clearly demonstrates the obligor will not adhere to their future contractual obligations, or if the circumstances are such that the obligee cannot prove the certainty of the breach of obligations before its due date, the degree of certainty regarding a future breach is not sufficient to terminate the contract. Nevertheless, considering the risk of harm to the other party, the suspension of mutual obligations and the demand for appropriate security are anticipated.
خلاصه ماشینی:
(Eskini, 1375:69, Qaem Maqam Farahani, 1375:124, and Taleb Ahmadi, 1382:84) The effect of bankruptcy on immediate contracts of the bankrupt is stated in Articles 423 and 424 of the Commercial Code, based on which some of the bankrupt's transactions are void and others are rescindable189, but regarding the effect of bankruptcy on the continuous financial obligations of merchants that arose as a result of ongoing contracts and where bankruptcy occurred during their course, the matter has not been entirely determined.
By obtaining appropriate security, the lessor ensures that despite the bankruptcy of the lessee, the possibility of a contract breach in the future is eliminated; however, the legislator in Article 512 of the Commercial Code, has not provided for what the obligation of the lessor is if the liquidation manager decides to maintain the lease without providing security.
(Eskini, 64:1375) Others, in line with the theory of Legal Administration 195, consider the parties responsible for the bill to be free to choose between cash payment or providing appropriate security (Qaem Maqam Farahani, 144:1375), but in the aforementioned article, no statement contrary to the rule contained in Article 405 has been made and there is no option involved; because with the bankruptcy of the issuer of the promissory note or the issuer who whose bill has not been accepted, and the bill acceptor who has accepted the bill, the hope of the holder of the commercial instrument to collect its amount at maturity is weakened, and the possibility of non-payment of the bill's amount is not unexpected.
(
, 
, 
)
