A Comparative Study of the Impact of Frustration of the Cause of Obligation on the Continuity of Successive Contracts in Iranian and French Law

In contract law, the purpose of concluding a contract is called cause, which may be legitimate or illegitimate. The article employs a descriptive and analytical method, utilizing a comparative approach to demonstrate that prior to the 2016 reforms of the French Civil Code, cause was a fundamental element of a contract. The absence of cause would result in the invalidation of one of the essential terms of the contract, thereby disrupting the contractual balance to the detriment of one of the parties. The prevailing doctrine and jurisprudence in France have regarded the legal status of caducité (nullity) of a contract as a means to address difficulties. Despite the removal of the concept of cause from the French Civil Code, many scholars still rely on the first part of Article 1186 of the French Civil Code, which was approved in 2016, as opinions on this matter remain consistent. While there is significant disagreement regarding the impact of the termination of a legitimate cause on the survival of the contract under Iranian law, this essay demonstrates that, in Iranian law, the legitimate cause or purpose of a contract that creates a difficult situation for one of the parties can lead to the termination of the contract. However, some scholars advocate for the option to terminate the contract in such circumstances.