A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Judgment on Heirs’ Liability for Official Property Transfer and the Purchaser’s Entitlement to Contractual Penalty for Delay
Zahra Shakeri
Abstract This article critically examines Judgment No. 96099709100047 of Branch Three of the Supreme Court of Iran concerning entitlement to a contractual penalty for delay in executing the official deed of property transfer. The principal issue is the legal effect of the seller’s death before the contractual due date and the extent of the heirs’ liability for continuing the deceased’s contractual obligations. In the case under review, the seller died before the stipulated date, while his heirs faced inheritance and tax formalities; meanwhile, the purchaser had neither paid nor deposited the outstanding balance of the purchase price. The courts rejected the claim for contractual penalty, relying on the seller’s death before the due date, the absence of an agreed new date, and the parties’ reciprocal obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method and library research, this study concludes that attributing no delay to the seller at the original due date is defensible. However, his death did not extinguish the obligation to execute the official deed or necessarily preclude the heirs’ potential liability after legal impediments were removed. Accordingly, their liability should be assessed by distinguishing the relevant periods and examining the impediments to performance and their subsequent conduct.
The Philosophy and Methodology of Judicial Decision Critique: Examining Its Foundations, Principles, Techniques, and Functions in Advancing Judicial Justice
seyed Nasrollah Ebrahimi
Abstract A judicial decision, as the final product of the adjudication process, is not merely a determination resolving a dispute between the parties; it also reflects the official interpretation of law, the exercise of public authority, the realization of justice, and the development of judicial practice. The quality of judicial decisions, particularly in terms of reasoning, legal justification, compliance with fair trial principles, logical coherence, and social implications, is therefore essential to the legitimacy of the justice system. However, judicial decisions, as human and interpretive determinations, may contain errors, ambiguity, inadequate reasoning, or misinterpretations of law. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology based on library sources, legislation, principles of fair trial, legal doctrine, procedural institutions, and comparative materials to examine the philosophy, foundations, principles, techniques, and functions of judicial decision critique. The findings indicate that systematic and scholarly critique, when grounded in impartiality, verifiability, confidentiality, and respect for judicial authority, can improve judicial reasoning, transparency, consistency, and public confidence. The study concludes that institutionalising a culture of principled judicial decision critique can contribute significantly to improving the quality of adjudication, refining judicial practice, and strengthening judicial justice.