Journal of college of Law for Legal and Political Sciences

Abstract

The principle governing all contracts is the contraction balance which permits the equivalence for all of the rights and commitments, and non has the right to cancel the contract without committing mistakes by the other part. The binding contract for the two sides makes mutual commitments to the guarantee of proposed contractors and these commitments are interrelated where if one of the parts wouldnot carry out his commitment, the other part would have the right to cancel the contract. In order to take this contract into account artificially, the contract should not include any weak part and strong part in which the strong part has the absolute authority in legislating contracts willingly without discussing with the other part. In respect of the contract willingness the judge should not intervene with the nature of the contract for the public benefit. As it is known that most of the contracts of private teaching institutions are imbalance in rights and commitments and the other part has the authority over the second part. However, this case could lead the second part to miss the chance in a particular work resulting a moral and material damage. Does any part have the authority to cancel the contract illegally and without failure of the other part where the contract has not included any condition stipulating this matter and without any responsibility taken over the arbitrary cancelation. We have concluded through this research that the justifying of the dissolution of the contract is wrong in the implementation of the commitment by one of the parties and the error should not be due to foreign circumstances such as sudden accident, force majeure or divine scourge, and the judge has the discretionary power to rule in the dissolution of the contract, To refuse to terminate the contract if justified. The contract shall not be rescinded abruptly unless the party making the mistake has failed to implement its obligation.If there is damage resulting from the abrogation, whether the damage is material or moral, the opportunity or success of a certain person or participation in the work or promotion is a mistake that requires compensation. Therefore, the main conclusion was that annulment of the contract without a requirement of annulment or a legal provision for the impossibility of execution for a foreign reason would be considered an arbitrary annulment that would entail liability once it had been achieved.