Procedure & Regularity for Accuracy, True Dispute Resolution and Happiness
The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201
PhD in Private Law University of Tehran Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Damages for late payment cannot be claimed in respect of every monetary debt: the debt must satisfy the conditions prescribed by Article 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts. Equally, however, such damages should not be denied without justification, leaving creditors, particularly under the prevailing adverse economic conditions, without legal protection and with principal claims diminished in value. Accordingly, if uncertainty as to the amount of a debt is regarded as a bar to an award of damages for late payment, that bar should apply only to debts whose amount cannot be established without recourse to expert assessment. Where the amount is ascertainable by a simple calculation, there should be no hesitation in awarding such damages. The same reasoning applies where the existence of a debt is uncertain: success in any legal action is inherently uncertain, and no party can know its outcome with certainty before a final judgment is rendered. This article applies these two criteria in reviewing three judgments delivered by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, defending one and criticising the other two.
Arabasadi, T. & Ghaffari, A. (2026). The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201. (e742471). Comparative Civil Procedure, 2(Special Number), e742471
MLA
Arabasadi, T., & Ghaffari, A. "The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201" .e742471 , Comparative Civil Procedure, 2, Special Number, 2026, e742471.
HARVARD
Arabasadi T., Ghaffari A. (2026). 'The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201', Comparative Civil Procedure, 2(Special Number), e742471.
CHICAGO
T. Arabasadi & A. Ghaffari, "The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201," Comparative Civil Procedure, 2 Special Number (2026): e742471,
VANCOUVER
Arabasadi T., Ghaffari A. The Distinction between Uncertain but Ascertainable Debts and Unascertained Debts (A Review and Critique of Judgments Nos. 9509970909100438, dated 14 November 2016; 9609970909100330, dated 20 September 2017; and 9509970909100534, dated 18 January 201. Comparative Civil Procedure. 2026;2(Special Number):e742471 (In Persian).
