The Conflict Between the Right to Compel Specific Performance and the Right of Rescission in Cases of Breach of a Stipulation as to Attribute in Sale
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61838/jhrlp.387Keywords:
sale, stipulation as to attribute, compelling specific performance, right of rescission, fundamental breach, remedyAbstract
A stipulation as to attribute, as one of the qualitative elements of a contract of sale, plays a decisive role in the parties’ intention. Breach of this stipulation disrupts the contractual equilibrium. The main issue is whether the buyer has an absolute right to compel the seller to repair or replace the goods, or whether, where such action is impossible or entails substantial costs, the buyer must resort to rescission of the contract. This study examines this conflict in light of the principles of private law. The objective is to clarify objective criteria for resolving the conflict between the two remedies of compelling specific performance and rescission in cases of breach of a stipulation as to attribute, and to propose a solution for preserving contractual stability. Method: This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on library-based research and a comparative examination of legal foundations, with a focus on the general principles of contracts, analyzes judicial practice and legal doctrine. The findings of the study indicated that compelling specific performance, as the primary remedy, takes precedence where there are no economic obstacles, such as disproportionate costs, or physical impediments. The right of rescission is an exceptional remedy that is conditional upon a fundamental breach of contract. Judicial practice has tended toward economic efficiency, such that where the cost of performing the obligation is disproportionate to its value, there is a tendency to restrict the right to compel performance and to direct the buyer toward rescission or damages. The conclusion of the study was that the conflict between specific performance and rescission is not an absolute conflict, but rather one that requires a proportional approach. It is recommended that fundamental breach be institutionalized as the key criterion for distinguishing between these two remedies. Where the breach of the stipulated attribute is remediable and the cost of remedy is not disproportionate, compelling specific performance should prevail; otherwise, the buyer’s right of rescission shall remain preserved.
Downloads
References
1. Shavell S. Specific Performance versus Damages for Breach of Contract. Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper, 2005.
2. Jovicic K. The Concept of the Fundamental Breach of Contract in the CISG. Strani Pravni Zivot. 2018(4):39-50.
3. Delfini F. La Renuncia a la Resolucion por Incumplimiento y la Practica de los Contratos Internacionales. Milan Law Review. 2025;6(1):1-9.
4. Azimi Manesh M, Jafari Fesharaki M, Ghorbani Far M. A Comparative Analysis of Cases of the Right of Termination Based on the Principle of Party Autonomy in Iranian Law and the Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law. 2024:1-23.
5. de Mascarenhas Ataide RPC, Boura M. Termination of Commercial Sale Contracts under the OHADA Uniform Act Relating to General Commercial Law. European Business Law Review. 2025;36(6).
6. Plass S. Modernizing Notice of Breach Rules to Preserve Contract Remedies. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2023;57(1):57-108.
7. Khanderia S. Termination for Breach: The Prospects of the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts to Interpret and Supplement the Indian Law of Contract. Uniform Law Review. 2022;27(4):512-42.
8. Zdravkovic U. The Right to Suspend Performance in Case of Anticipatory Breach of Contract on International Sale of Goods. Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Nisu. 2023;62(99):189-206.
9. Al-Shammari ANA. The Technical Foundations of the Theory of Termination. 2015.
10. Shakiba AH, Qasmi M. An Investigation into the Specific Performance Remedy for Breach of Contracts: A Comparative Study of the Islamic Iranian Legal System and Common Law. Journal of Shariah Law Research. 2022;7(1):43-62.
11. Marandi MR, Homayonnia P. Effects and Consequences of Termination of Contract in Iranian Law. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. 2019;7(02):22-5.
12. Riahi, Sadeghi, Parsapour. Priority of the Right to Compel Performance over the Right of Termination in Iranian Court Judgments and a Critique of It. Scientific Journal. 2019;15(2):241-59.
13. Guyvan PD. The Duration of the Civil Obligation, the Termination of the Contract. Reality of Politics Estimates-Comments-Forecasts. 2022;22(4):42-55.
14. O'Sullivan J. Rescission as a Self-Help Remedy: A Critical Analysis. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2000;59(3):509-43.
15. Gibson A. Discharge and Breach of Contract. Introduction to Business Law in Papua New Guinea2024.
16. Emadi Z, Mazarei A. The Non-Rescindable Definite Contracts in Islamic Sharia and Iranian Law. International Journal. 2015.
17. Asgari J, Esmaili M. The Longitudinal or Parallel Relationship between the Right to Compel Performance and the Right of Termination as a Result of Breach of Condition. 2016.
18. Stannard JE, Capper D. Termination for Breach of Contract: Oxford University Press; 2020.
19. Tavakkolinia O. Stipulation of Quality Regarding the Parties to a Sale Contract and the Legal Sanction for Its Breach. Studies in Islamic Jurisprudence and Legal Principles. 2020;41(14):85-112.
20. Sheikh F, Cafa MA, Bahremand M. Examining Conditions Contrary to the Nature of the Contract in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Statutory Laws. Comparative Studies in Jurisprudence, Law, and Politics. 2023;5(3):41-68.
21. Baladehi AE, Niknejad J. Evaluating Legal Status of Inconsistent Possessions with Stipulation. Review of European Studies. 2017;9:271.
22. Pirhaji M, Eskandari-Pudeh MR. Role of Custom in Contract Principles: Approaching towards Iranian Law. Asian Social Science. 2014;10(7):79.
23. Zareshahi A. A Comparative Study of Damages and Price Reduction Remedy for Breach of Sale Contract under CISG, English and Iranian Laws. Journal of Politics and Law. 2016;9(10).
24. Beale H, Dugdale T. Contracts between Businessmen: Planning and the Use of Contractual Remedies. British Journal of Law and Society. 1975;2(1):45-60.
25. Stremitzer A. Standard Breach Remedies, Quality Thresholds, and Cooperative Investments. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 2012;28(2):337-59.
26. Bradgate R, White F, Llewelyn M. Commercial Law: Oxford University Press; 2012.
27. Fatemi SMGS. Autonomy and Equal Right to Divorce with Specific Reference to Shi'i Fiqh and the Iranian Legal System. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. 2006;17(3):281-94.
28. Treitel GH. Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Account: Oxford University Press; 1988.
29. Abadi MH, Kalkoshki AA. Loss Compensation Practices in International Sales. Journal of Politics and Law. 2017;10:118.
30. Kim IH. Warranty and the Pay-to-Be-Paid Rule in Korea. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce. 2012;43(4):9.
31. Lando H, Rose C. On the Enforcement of Specific Performance in Civil Law Countries. International Review of Law and Economics. 2004;24(4):473-87.
32. Schwartz A. The Case for Specific Performance. The Yale Law Journal. 1979;89(2):271-306.
33. Anidjar LY, Katz O, Zamir E. Enforced Performance in Common Law versus Civil Law Systems: An Empirical Study of a Legal Transformation. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2020;68(1):1-54.
34. Rowan S. Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of Performance: OUP Oxford; 2012.
Downloads
Publication Timeline
- Submitted
- Revised
- Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Zahra Tavassoli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
