نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
One group, relying on the lack of external realization, considers it fundamentally irreparable, while another approach, accepting the possibility of realizing the benefit and that its conditions are met, considers the loss of profit to be recoverable, subject to proof of the possibility of achieving it and the existence of causal relationship.A review of the doctrine and judicial precedent shows that Iranian courts have mainly emphasized the criterion of certainty of profit and have limited the scope of compensation for losses by distinguishing between possible and actual profits; an approach that is rooted in the cautious interpretation of the concept of loss of profits in Imami jurisprudence. In contrast, French law provides a more coherent analytical framework by making a clear distinction between loss of profit and loss of opportunity. In this system, the main criterion for compensation is measuring the probability of realizing the profit and evaluating the role of the behavior of the tortfeasor in destroying it; in such a way that whenever the benefit that has been forfeited has a strong and reasonable chance of being realized, the loss is considered compensable.This difference in the analysis of the type of harm and the recognition of the causal relationship has led to the formation of a more precise structure in the assessment of damages in French law. Analyzing an important judgment in Iranian law, this article shows how the lack of conceptual distinction between types of harm and the restrictive understanding of loss of profit have affected judicial argument and decision-making.By comparing the approach of the Iranian court with the accepted standards in French law, a framework is proposed that can help us to understand more clearly, assess more accurately, and strengthen the coherence of judicial precedent in the area of loss of profit.
کلیدواژهها English
