The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions

The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions

A Critical Analysis of the Tehran Court of Appeal’s Decision on Eviction Liability in a Contract Void Due to Incapacity, with Emphasis on Restitution of the Purchase Price Based on Contemporary Expert Valuation

Document Type : Criticism of the judgment of the Court of Appeal

Authors
Nader Pourbeyk Mohammad 1
Javad Habibitabar 2
1 Judge, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Ph.D. Candidate in Private Law, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Judicial Law,Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran
10.22034/analysis.2025.2079009.1153
Abstract
The issue of compensating losses in transactions invalidated due to legal incapacity (ḥajr) constitutes one of the most complex matters in Iranian private law particularly when the purchase price is paid within an inflationary economy and its real value sharply declines over time. The Tehran Court of Appeal’s ruling, which obliges the incapacitated seller to return the “current expert-assessed value” instead of compensating for the “actual depreciation of the purchase price,” exemplifies the theoretical and practical tension between two competing approaches: one that measures compensation according to the current value of the sold property, and another that considers the purchasing power of the price originally paid. The central question of this study is therefore whether, in a contract voided due to incapacity, the proper criterion for compensation aligns with the principles of civil law, tort liability, unification-of-procedure precedents, and the economic logic of restoring loss. Using library research and documentary analysis, this article examines both the theoretical and practical dimensions of this question.The findings show that adopting the “current market value of the automobile” as the measure of compensation is inconsistent with the doctrinal foundations of nullity, the rules of tort liability, the principle of restoring the parties to their prior position, and the standards set in Unification of Procedure Ruling No. 811; the market value of property is driven by inflation, market fluctuations, and other factors unrelated to the parties’ conduct, and thus cannot accurately reflect the buyer’s real loss. Conversely, the criterion of “depreciation of the purchase price” accords with the structure of Iranian law, the economic analysis of law, relevant jurisprudential principles, and restorative justice. Moreover, the Court’s reasoning displays deficiencies concerning the validity of the incapacitated party’s confession, allocation of the burden of proof, analysis of successive possessors, coherence of reasoning, and treatment of evidence highlighting the need for revisiting judicial reasoning and clarifying the standards for calculating damages.
Keywords
Eviction Liability
Incapacity
Legal Competence
Tort Liability
Monetary Depreciation
Expert Valuation
Judicial Analysis
Books
1.     Badini, H. (2008). Lecture notes on non-contractual obligations. Tehran: Faculty of Law and Political Science Press.
2.     Shahidi, M. (2003). Civil law (Vol. 6) (1st ed.). Tehran: Majd Scientific and Cultural Association.
3.     Katouzian, N. (1994). Civil law: Specific contracts (Vol. 1) (5th ed.). Tehran: Enteshar Joint Stock Company.
4.     Katouzian, N. (2007). Non-contractual obligations (6th ed.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
5.     Mousavi Bojnourdi, S. M. (1993). An inquiry from jurists concerning jurisprudential and legal issues arising from the decrease in the value of money. Rahnemon Journal, (6).
6.     Hashemi Shahroudi, S. M. (1995). Jurisprudential rulings on the decrease in the value of money. Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt Journal, (2).
7.     Yousefi, A. A. (2002). A jurisprudential study of theories on compensation for the decrease in the value of money. Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt Quarterly, (31).
Articles
8.     Javadi,M. (2023). Examination and Criticism of the Supreme Court Decision as a Unified Judicial Precedent Regarding the Seller's Responsibility in the Guarantee to Indemnify. (e707619). The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions doi: 10.22034/analysis.2023.1971204.1009  (in Persian)
9.     Khodabakshi,A. and Drvishzadeh,M. J. (2025). The Lawsuit of "Declaration of Incapacity" Against the Deceased: An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Unified Opinion No. 72, Dated 25/11/1975 of the General Assembly. Research and development in private law, 1(2), 130-156. doi: 10.22034/jpl.2025.2045905.1139 (in Persian)
10. Safari, M., & Pak Tinath, H. (2010). Tort liability and contractual liability: Differences and functions. Private Law Studies, 40(4), 247–266.
11. Mousavi,S. A. (2019). The responsibility of the seller to compensate the buyer in case of belonging the sale object to a third party. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 2(4), 414-432. doi: 10.22034/law.2019.239615
The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions
Volume 4, Issue 8 - Serial Number 8
January 2026
Pages 72-96