The Position of Loss of Profit in Civil Liability and the Feasibility of Its Claim in Iran and France

Abstract

Civil liability in Iranian and French law is based on the principle of full compensation for damages; however, the position of loss of profit or deprivation of certain benefit has always been a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study is to examine the theoretical and jurisprudential foundations, analyze the laws of Iran and France, and clarify the feasibility of claiming loss of profit as a compensable damage. The central question is whether the legal systems of Iran and France, despite emphasizing damage compensation, actually recognize compensation for loss of profit. The research method of this article is analytical-comparative. In this regard, through library sources, statutory texts, and judicial precedents, the jurisprudential and legal foundations of civil liability in Iran are first examined and then compared with the French legal system. The findings indicate that in Iranian law, despite jurisprudential foundations such as the rules of La Zarar (no harm), Itlaf (destruction), and Tasbib (causation), as well as the theoretical acceptance of some leading jurists, Note 2 of Article 515 of the Civil Procedure Code of Iran has created an obstacle to the explicit recognition of loss of profit. Judicial practice is also inconsistent; some rulings of the Supreme Court of Iran have considered definite loss of profit as claimable, while lower courts have often tended to reject it. In contrast, in French law, Article 1231-2 of the French Civil Code explicitly states that damages include both the losses incurred and the benefits of which the person has been deprived. Judicial practice has also provided a coherent framework by distinguishing between the loss of certain benefit and the loss of opportunity. The conclusion of this study is that the recognition of compensation for definite loss of profit is essential to achieve justice and protect the rights of the injured party. In Iran, legislative reform and the establishment of judicial uniformity could be a crucial step toward resolving the existing ambiguities.