Customer Commitment and Obligation on Risk Tolerance in Iranian Law and International Commercial Terms (Incoterms) 2010: A Comparative Analysis

Given the ever-increasing application of Incoterms in international trade and the progressive tendency of traders in employing the aforementioned set of rules in international transactions, a comparative examination of the customer's obligations and duties in Incoterms and Iranian Law would be able to alleviate the inconsistences of the obligations of the parties to international transactions and hence prevent further disputes. As such, the purpose of this study was to offer solutions to Iranian traders in the international and domestic realm.
This research employs theoretical methods, that is, it employs descriptive-analytical methods and seeks out library archive, including books and articles, for data collection.
Ethical Considerations: In all stages of authoring the current study, principles of integrity and trustworthiness were observed, while the originality of the texts were maintained.
The duties and obligations of the customer are different in each published version of Incoterms, which are, both similar and different to Iranian law in different cases. Nevertheless, by the inclusion of terms addressing the possibility of agreement between the parties, the discrepancy between the Iranian Law and Incoterms can be alleviated.
The comparative analysis of Customer Commitment and Obligation on Risk Tolerance in Iran and International Commercial Terms (Incoterms) 2010 law indicate that Incoterms is rather focused on the handing-over of the object of sale, while the Iranian law, on the contrary, is focused on taking delivery of the object of sale, and therefore these two bodies of law are divergent in the aforementioned grounds.

Please Cite This Article As: Abadian Vash, K & Sheidaei Gorchin Qaleh, M (2021). “Customer Commitment and Obligation on Risk Tolerance in Iranian Law and International Commercial Terms (Incoterms) 2010: A Comparative Analysis”. Interdisciplinary Legal Research, 2 (2): 69-81.