عنوان مقاله [English]
The outbreak of the coronavirus was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019, and gradually spread to the rest of the world, including Iran. Among the effects of this epidemic are the hardening, frustration, and impossibility of contractual obligations, which are discussed under the Hardship, Frustration, and force majeure, respectively. Of these excuses, our legal system has only accepted the explicit criteria governing the Force Majeure, which is also based on the impossibility of the commitment. the months-long experience of countries and the comments of official national judicial authorities indicate a tendency to accept the maximum of coronavirus conditions as Force Majeure. The corona pandemic and its limitations are temporary in nature. In the meantime, however, it will be necessary to consider the type of commitment in terms of unity or plurality of the desired, with this explanation that in cases of unity of the desired, the conditions resulting from coronavirus will essentially lead to the termination of the contract and the discharge of the obligation, as opposed to the multiplicity of the desired, which temporarily impedes the suspension of the restrained part and the retention of the obligation in the possible parts. Predictability of legal prohibitions due to corona outbreak has discharged a wide spectrum of corona-driven conditions from the title of Force Majeure. Ultimately, it is the judge who must have to state if they meet the conditions of Force Majeure, and the mere declaration of a state of emergency by national and international authorities will have no effect on its realization in single cases. However, the legislature's intervention in determining the legal status of obligations that have become hard-to-perform due to corona pandemic, results in judges not needing to rely heavily on secondary rules such as principle of “la zarar” or “la haraj” principle” of hardship.