عنوان مقاله [English]
Law and justice are closely linked, and decisions that do not conform to justice and fairness are not willingly executed, leading to resorting to all kinds of deceit to escape from it. The link between law and justice can be observed in many judicial decisions, and one of the manifestations of justice in judicial decisions is the lawsuit for damages by the plaintiff. Nowadays, in various contracts, especially commercial ones, the pledgee tries to put pressure on the pledger and to ensure that he she fulfills the pledge, sums of money are assigned to the pledge agreement as a consideration. In some cases, the pledgee, for various reasons, such as economic fluctuations or negligence and shortcomings, refuses to perform the contractual obligations (in part or in full), resulting in encountering an enormous amount of contractual loss, which sometimes exceeds the contract value. In this type of litigation, the role of judges and, in fact, the judgments are very strong and some courts consider the "principle of interpretation in the light of the whole contract", "the administration of justice and fairness as a rule" and "the illegality of the condition", deviating from Article 230 of the Civil Code and order payment of the obligation by modifying its amount or removing the above-mentioned condition and holding it in accordance with justice. In the present paper, several instances of judicial opinions are mentioned in this regard and their arguments are analyzed.