Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Ph.D. Candidate of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Edalat University, Tehran, Iran. Supreme Court Judge.
2
Associate Prof. Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
3
M.A. in Private Law, faculty of law, Shahid Beheshti university, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
1. Introduction and Objective
An unconscionable transaction may be defined as an agreement that rational members of society would not ordinarily enter into. The foundations of this category of transactions can be traced in Iranian law, while its most salient instance in Islamic jurisprudence is represented by prodigal or imprudent transactions. In the common law tradition, such agreements are examined under the doctrines of unconscionable bargains and unfair contract terms. This study aims to identify and analyze the foundations, instances, and criteria for recognizing unconscionable transactions in Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian law, and Western legal systems.
2. Methods and Materials
This study employs a descriptive–analytical method and is based on library research. It first explains the concept of unconscionable transactions and distinguishes it from comparable legal institutions. It then examines the historical background of the issue in Islamic jurisprudence and foreign legal systems. Finally, drawing on juristic views, legal scholarship, and judicial decisions, it analyzes the factors that render transactions unconscionable.
3. Research Findings
Unconscionable agreements may occur either in contracts themselves or in their ancillary terms. Imprudence and irrationality are among the most important indicators of such agreements. According to some contemporary jurists, useless, impossible, or indeterminate terms, unconscionable penalty clauses, and excessive dowries are among their instances. A common feature of Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian law, and Western legal systems is their emphasis on gross disparity in value and irrational conduct as assessed by the standard of customary reason.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Reconsidering Article 230 of the Iranian Civil Code and limiting the principle of freedom of contract are necessary for achieving contractual justice and preserving public order. Fair interpretation of legal rules and realistic judicial analysis can help prevent the expansion of unconscionable agreements in Iranian law.
Keywords
