Right to Object to the Value of Relief Sought and the Admissibility of Claim for the Formation and Termination of Contract; A Critique and Analysis of Judgment Rendered by the 142th Branch of the Public Civil Court

Noori, SayedFazel

doi:10.22034/analysis.2025.723432

Right to Object to the Value of Relief Sought and the Admissibility of Claim for the Formation and Termination of Contract; A Critique and Analysis of Judgment Rendered by the 142th Branch of the Public Civil Court

Document Type : A critique of the civil court's judgment

Author

SayedFazel Noori

Former Justice of the Disciplinary Prosecutor’s Office for Judges

10.22034/analysis.2025.723432

Abstract

The issuance of a strong and persuasive judgment is subject to the two dimensions of procedural strength and substantive firmness. If these two dimensions move in step with each other, they set forth an upright sturdy body. The greater the flaw in procedure and format and the deficiency in content and substance, the greater the extent to which the judgment is devoid of formal strength and deprived of the substantive firmness. Taking this consideration in mind the following critique and analysis has been presented. This article deals with the two aforementioned dimensions of the judgment in question. The results of the study using the aforementioned approach indicate the existence of some flaws in the judgment, the most important of which are delineated by descriptive and analytical methods.
From a procedural perspective, issues such as unnecessary length of text, use of inappropriate expressions, inaccuracy in enumeration of facts, and lack of coherence in the writing have been examined. In the substantive dimension, issues such as denying the right to object to value of relief sought, and raising unnecessary issues in the field of doctrine have been examined.

Keywords

form of statement of claim

relief sought

value of relief sought

decision and opinion

theory building

coherence and inconsistency

claim for termination

well-reasoned judgment