A Comparative Study of the Conditions for Enforcement and Implementation of Mitigation of Damages Rule in Iranian and American Legal Systems

In times of the breach of a legal or contractual obligation by the injuring party, the injured party should act as a reasonable person and take conventional steps to prevent avoidable damages. This duty begins when an obligation is breached and the promisor become aware of the breach of the obligation and is capable to mitigate the damages. Given the lack of explicit prediction for mitigation of damages in Iran’s law, naturally, the terms and procedures of mitigation of damages have not been clarified too. Under what circumstances, the duty to mitigation of damages is imposed on the injured party? If the injured party is incompetent, who will take the responsibility for mitigation of damages? Is it possible to enforce the rules of damages in cases of likely breach of contract? Is the obligation of the injured party to mitigate the damages an obligation to means or an obligation to ends? A Comparative study of the American law and these and similar questions can, while identifying its strengths and weaknesses, help the case law and the legislator in clarifying the mitigation of damages rule.