Comparative Analysis of the Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Law with the French Legal System (with Emphasis on the Good Faith Doctrine)

Abstract

The principle of contractual bindingness (pacta sunt servanda) constitutes a core foundation of private law and transactional order, yet its conceptual basis and practical consequences vary across legal systems. This narrative review comparatively examines the doctrine of binding force in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and the French legal system, while analyzing the central role of the modern doctrine of good faith. In Imami jurisprudence, contractual bindingness is grounded in scriptural evidence, rational principles, and ethical norms such as honesty, trustworthiness, and the prohibition of deception, with khiyārāt serving as corrective mechanisms that prevent rigid or unjust enforcement. Iranian contract law, reflected primarily in Civil Code Articles 219–224, adopts these jurisprudential foundations and reinforces bindingness through judicial practice that generally interprets rescission narrowly. In contrast, following the 2016 reform, French contract law transformed its classical will-based model by elevating good faith into an explicit and general obligation under Article 1104, thereby redefining bindingness through cooperation, transparency, and contractual fairness. The three-way comparison reveals a shared commitment to contractual stability but significant divergence in the normative and functional role of good faith: implicit in Imami jurisprudence, fragmented in Iranian law, and fully explicit and mandatory in French law. The study concludes that leveraging the ethical depth of Imami jurisprudence and the doctrinal advances of French law can support the systematic integration of good faith into Iranian contract law and enhance both fairness and efficiency in contractual relations.