International Journal of Law and Politics Studies

Yazarlar: Nancy Asbaghipour, Reza Simbar

Konular:-

DOI:10.32996/ijlps.2021.3.2.1

Anahtar Kelimeler:Construction contract,Liability,Coercive liability,Compensation

Özet: A tremendous sum of development exercises in our nation are carried out in compliance with the contract and the common conditions of the contract, in spite of the fact that there's no legitimate commitment, but indeed in private sector activities since the entire materials of the common conditions of the contract to a huge degree, it appears that these conditions are being executed. Respectful and legally binding risks in development contracts can go a long way. The question that the present study seeks to answer is what is the fundamental difference between the law of Iran and the United Kingdom in violating the obligations and methods of compensation in construction contracts? Also, what are the differences between the basic conditions of compensation in the law of Iran and the United Kingdom? Within the Iranian lawful framework, the strategies of emolument in development contracts are the fulfillment of the same commitment (and the installment of emolument is if unequivocally provided within the contract); Within the legitimate English framework, be that as it may, the methods of recompense in development contracts are the installment of stipend, and there's no concept of the same commitment as one of the strategies of emolument. Moreover, in Iranian law, recompense may be indicated within the contract, or custom or law may require emolument. In English law, an emolument does not get to be indicated within the contract.

---