A Critique and Justification of Judicial Precedent When Compensating for Devaluation of Money in Tortious Liability

Arabasadi, Taha; Ghaffari, Amir

doi:10.22034/analysis.2026.2080199.1171

A Critique and Justification of Judicial Precedent When Compensating for Devaluation of Money in Tortious Liability

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

Authors

Taha Arabasadi ¹

Amir Ghaffari ²

¹ Holder of PhD in private law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author)

² PhD in Private Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/analysis.2026.2080199.1171

Abstract

One of the current issues in the Iranian legal system is the issue of currency devaluation; in 2000, the Iranian legislator, by enacting Article 522 of the Procedure Act of Public and Revolutionary Courts in Civil Affairs, took the initiative to set a regulation with the aim of compensating for currency devaluation. Aside from criticisms made concerning the aforementioned article, the application of this article to various tortious liability claims has always given rise to confusion and disagreement.Therefore, the main question facing the authors of this article is which judicial approach to the issue of devaluation of money in the field of tortious liability is necessary so as to be considered as acceptable. This article, by adopting a theoretical approach based on analysis of judicial decisions, while criticizing and theoretically justifying numerous judgments rendered by Iranian courts concerning the issue of devaluation of money in instances of civil liability, has judged the possibility or impossibility of the application of Article 522 of the Procedure Act of Public and Revolutionary Courts in Civil Affairs, and presented an acceptable approach by emphasizing distinction between debts and monetary obligations.Thus, considering the distinction between monetary debts and monetary obligations on the one hand and the authority of judges to determine the amount, method and quality of compensation for losses, relying upon Article 3 of the Civil Liability Law, on the other hand, non-contractual obligations fall outside the scope of Article 522 of the aforementioned Act, and the judge can order compensation for devaluation of money with greater generosity than for monetary debts.Various judgments have been rendered by the courts in line with this approach, which have been referred to and criticized in this article. Therefore, this article first addresses the distinction between debts and monetary obligation, then, respectively, destruction of property, causation, usurpation, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio and, finally, benefitting from the work or property of another person, as the most important examples of civil liability, have been examined in depth, criticized, and justified from the perspective of case law.

Keywords

destruction of property

negotiorum gestio

benefitting from the work or property of another person

unjust enrichment

causation

monetary obligation

monetary debt

usurpation

1. Arabasadi, Taha; Karimi, Abbas (2024), “Comparative Study of Legal Attributes of Money, Private Law, Vol. 21, No 1. (in persian)

2. Davys v. Richardson (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 202.

3. Helli, Mohammad (1989) A’saraer Al’havi Le Tahrire’l Fatavi, 2^nded. Vol. 2, Qom: Intesharat Islami. (in Arabic)

4. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. Pfeifer (1983) 462 US 523.

5. Johnson v. Agnew, 2 WLR 487-499 (1979)

6. Judgment No. 3522, 1941/01/03, 3^rd Branch of Iranian Supreme Court.

7. Judgment No. 9009974410300302, 3^rd Branch of Urumai Civil Court.

8. Judgment No. 9109970223701537, 2013/03/17, 37^th Branch of Tehran Court of Appeals.

9. Judgment No. 9209970220700613, 7^th Branch of Tehran Court of Appeals.

10. Judgment No. 9209971420300332, 3^rd Branch of Langrood Civil Court.

11. Judgment No. 9209972160100399, 36^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

12. Judgment No. 9209972164500126, 220^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

13. Judgment No. 9309970221801469, 2015/02/03, 18^th Branch of Tehran Court of Appeal.

14. Judgment No. 9309982163200375, 2016/02/14, 207^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

15. Judgment No. 9209982181900072, 2016/12/26, 179^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

16. Judgment No. 14033639000323315, 2020/08/24, 65^th Branch of Tehran Court of Appeals.

17. Judgment No. 14103390002238422, 2022/09/05, 14^th Branch of Gorgan Civil Court.

18. Judgment No. 140339390000690535, 1^st Branch of Asaluye Civil Court.

19. Judgment No. 140368390001082623, 2024/04/22, 177^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

20. Judgment No. 140368290001872721, 2024/05/08, 10^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

21. Judgment 2024/05/08, Tehran Civil Court.

22. Judgment No. 1403668390007144943, 2024/08/13, 71^st Branch of Tehran Court of Appeals.

23. Judgment No. 140368390008512459, 2024/09/08, 18^th Branch of Tehran Court of Appeals.

24. Judgment No. 14044939000649441, 2025/06/21, 2^nd Branch of Shahrood Civil Court.

25. Judgment No. 140411390001735560, 2025/10/11, 4^th Branch of Abhar Civil Court.

26. Judgment No. 140468390014821090, 2025/11/01, 7^th Branch of Tehran Civil Court.

27. Katouzian, Naser (2016), Civil Liability, Extra Contract Obligations, 14^thed. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. (in persian)

28. Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. [1976] AC 443 (HL) 25-32.

29. Mirshekari, Abbas (2022), Resale Amali Dar Masoolia’at Madani, 4^thed. Tehran: Sahami Inteshar Press. (in persian)

30. Mohseni, Hassan; Arabasadi, Taha; Ghaffari, Amir (2025), “Analysis of Principle of Nominalism: A Comparative Study of Iranian Law and English Law” Comparative Law Quarterly, Vo;. 9, No. 2. (in persian)

31. Najafi, Mohammad Hassan (1983), Javahiro’l Kalam, 7^thed. Vol. 37, Beirut: Dar Ihya Torathe’l Arabi. (in Arabic)

32. Norfolk & Western Rly Co. v. Liepelt, (1980), 444 US 490; St Louis Southwestern Rly Co. v. Dickson, (1985), 470 US 409.

33. Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd, (1980), Ac 136, (HL).

34. Pourbeyk Mohammad, Nader; Habibitabar, Javad (2026), “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” Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions, Vol. 4, No. 8. Doi: 10.22034/analysis.2025.2079009.1153

35. Shekari, Roshana’ali (2001), “A Critical Analysis of note 2 to Article 515 of Code of Civil Procedure (adam-ol-naf)” Private Law Studies Quarterly, No. 52. (in persian)

36. Shirazi, Mohammad (1992), Al’Qavaid Al’Feqhi’e, 1^sted. Beirut: Moa’asse Imam Reza. (in Arabic)

37. Shirazi, Mohammad (No Date), Isalo’talib Ila Makaseb, Vol. 6, Tehran: Manshoorat A’alami. (in Arabic)

Send comment about this article

Name *

Enter Name.

Email Address *

Enter a valid email address.

Affiliation *

Enter a vaid affiliation.

Comments *

Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)

Security Code *