جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "خسارت تنبیهی" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

The pursuit of justice is a fundamental endeavor in the realms of law and ethics, serving as a cornerstone for the creation and enforcement of legal framework that govern human societies. Throughout history, legal scholars and philosophers have grappled with the concept of justice, aiming to establish conditions that promote fairness and equity. The realization of justice often hinges on the formulation and application of effective laws, which are essential in guiding individuals towards achieving what they rightfully deserve. Among the various branches of civil law, tort law occupies a pivotal role in the quest for justice, as it addresses the legal consequences of wrongful acts and the remedies available to those who have suffered harm.
     In modern society, characterized by rapid industrialization and complex economic and social interactions, the likelihood of damages and harmful conduct has increased significantly. This has amplified the relevance of tort law, which now plays a critical role in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of individuals and society as a whole. As societies evolve, the need to reform and optimize tort law to better align with contemporary realities becomes increasingly apparent. This research focuses on one of the most significant aspects of tort law—the methods of compensation—and seeks to evaluate their efficiency through the lens of economic law.
     The study acknowledges that compensation for damages can be approached from different perspectives, notably the compensatory (remedial) and punitive approaches. The compensatory approach, widely adopted in various legal systems, aims to restore the victim to their original state by obliging the wrongdoer to provide monetary compensation equivalent to the damage caused. On the other hand, the punitive approach, particularly prevalent in common law jurisdictions, goes beyond mere compensation. It seeks to penalize the wrongdoer for egregious conduct and deter future misconduct by imposing financial penalties that exceed the compensatory amount. The coexistence of these two approaches raises fundamental questions about their alignment with the objectives of tort law and their effectiveness in achieving justice.

The central question of this research is: How do the objectives of tort law influence the choice and application of compensation methods? Specifically, this study seeks to explore whether the integration of punitive and deterrent measures within the compensation framework can be justified within the broader goals of tort law. The research also aims to address subsidiary questions, including:     In what contexts should the objectives of tort law, such as deterrence, retribution, or victim compensation, be prioritized when determining the appropriate method of compensation?
     Does the consideration of tortfeasor’s behavior and intent in determining the compensation method enhance or undermine the principles of tort law?
     Can an economically efficient compensation system be designed that balances the interests of the victim, the wrongdoer, and society at large, while also fulfilling the fundamental objectives of tort law?

The hypothesis of this research posits that the incorporation of punitive and deterrent measures into the compensation framework is not only a necessary evolution of tort law but also one that aligns with its core objectives. This hypothesis rests on the premise that tort law serves multiple purposes, including the restoration of the victim, the punishment of the wrongdoer, and the deterrence of future harmful conduct. Therefore, a compensation system that solely focuses on remedial measures may fall short of addressing the broader societal implications of wrongful acts.
     Moreover, the research hypothesizes from economic law perspective, an efficient compensation system should be designed to minimize the social costs associated with harmful conduct. This includes not only the direct costs borne by the victim but also the indirect costs to society, such as the potential for future harm if deterrent measures are not adequately enforced. The acceptance and application of punitive and deterrent methods, when appropriate, could thus enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of tort law in achieving its goals.

This research adopts a comparative legal analysis methodology, supplemented by an economic analysis of law framework, to examine the efficiency of compensation methods in tort law. The comparative approach involves analyzing and contrasting the compensation systems of different legal jurisdictions, particularly focusing on the dichotomy between compensatory and punitive approaches. This comparative analysis will be grounded in doctrinal legal research, drawing on primary legal sources, such as statutes, case law, and legal commentaries, from a range of jurisdictions.
     The economic analysis of law framework will be employed to assess the efficiency of these compensation methods. This involves applying principles of economic theory to evaluate how different compensation systems allocate resources, incentivize behavior, and impact overall social welfare. The framework will consider factors such as the deterrent effect of punitive damages, the economic impact on tortfeasors, and the cost-benefit analysis of various compensation methods.
     In addition to doctrinal and economic analysis, the research will engage with relevant legal theories concerning justice, fairness, and the objectives of tort law. This theoretical framework will provide a basis for understanding how different compensation methods align with or diverge from the principles of justice that underlie tort law.
     By integrating these methodologies, the research aims to develop a nuanced understanding of the efficiency and effectiveness of compensation methods in tort law. The findings will contribute to the ongoing debate on the optimal design of compensation systems, offering insights that could inform future legal reforms aimed at enhancing the justice-delivery function of tort law.

The results of this study underscore the complexity and multifaceted nature of compensation methods within tort law, especially when examined through the lens of economic analysis. It is proven that no single compensation method—whether compensatory, punitive, or benefit-oriented—sufficiently addresses the comprehensive objectives of tort law in isolation. These objectives include not only compensating victims and soothing their distress but also deterring wrongful behavior and maintaining social order.
     Compensatory Approach: The compensatory approach, which is predominant in many legal systems, including Iran’s, focuses primarily on making the victim whole by requiring the wrongdoer to pay an amount equivalent to the damage caused. This approach aligns well with the objective of compensating victims and ensuring that they are not left bearing the costs of harm inflicted upon them. However, the study found that this approach falls short in cases where mere compensation does not sufficiently deter the wrongdoer or others from engaging in similar harmful behavior in the future. Moreover, in situations involving intentional harm or gross negligence, compensatory damages alone do not reflect the severity of the wrongdoing, nor do they adequately address the need for social deterrence and order.
     Punitive Approach: The punitive approach, widely adopted in jurisdictions such as the United States and England, introduces additional financial penalties aimed at punishing the wrongdoer and deterring future misconduct. This method is particularly effective in cases where the harm was caused intentionally or through gross negligence, as it targets the underlying motives of profit or malice. However, the research highlighted that the punitive approach is not universally effective. In cases of non-intentional negligence or where the harm was not motivated by profit, punitive damages may lead to disproportionate outcomes, potentially imposing undue burdens on defendants who did not act with malice or gross recklessness. This could result in negative consequences, such as discouraging economic activity or creating inequities in the enforcement of tort law.
     Benefit-Oriented Approach: This approach, which considers the benefits accrued by the wrongdoer as a basis for determining compensation, was found to be insufficient in addressing the full spectrum of tort law’s objectives. While it may be effective in ensuring that wrongdoers do not profit from their harmful actions, it does not necessarily contribute to victim compensation or societal deterrence in a meaningful way. Additionally, the application of this approach may be limited in cases where the wrongdoer does not derive a direct economic benefit from their actions, leaving gaps in the legal response to harm.
     Mixed Approach: The study’s analysis supports the superiority of a mixed approach, which combines elements of compensatory, punitive, and benefit-oriented methods, tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. Legal systems that employ a mixed approach are better equipped to address the diverse types of harm and the varied intentions behind harmful actions. By considering the psychological and behavioral elements of the wrongdoer’s conduct, a mixed approach can more effectively achieve the goals of tort law, including deterrence, victim compensation, and social order. The economic analysis further suggests that this approach is more efficient in terms of social welfare, as it reduces the likelihood of future harm and encourages behavior that aligns with societal norms.
     Application in Islamic Law: The research also delves into the principles of Islamic law, which emphasize the prohibition of harm and the necessity of compensating for damages. These principles, derived from Quranic sources and the jurisprudential concepts like "Homat-e Akl-e Mal be Batel" (the prohibition of consuming wealth unlawfully) and "La Za'rar" (no harm and no reciprocal harm), align with the mixed approach. The study found that Islamic law supports the imposition of extra-compensatory damages in cases of intentional harm or gross negligence, thereby endorsing a method that integrates compensatory and punitive elements. Moreover, the concept of discretionary punishment as deemed appropriate by the ruler in Islamic law provides a legal basis for adopting a mixed approach in contemporary legal systems influenced by Islamic jurisprudence.

This research highlights the critical need to reevaluate and potentially reform the current compensation methods employed in tort law, particularly within systems that rely predominantly on a compensatory approach. The findings indicate that while the compensatory method effectively addresses the objective of victim compensation, it falls short in achieving broader goals such as deterrence and the maintenance of social order. Similarly, the punitive and benefit-oriented approaches, when applied in isolation, do not fully meet the comprehensive needs of tort law, particularly in addressing the varied motivations behind harmful actions.
     The adoption of a mixed approach, which integrates compensatory, punitive, and benefit-oriented methods, is recommended as the most effective way to realize the full spectrum of tort law’s objectives. This approach allows for a more nuanced application of legal principles, ensuring that the response to harm is proportionate to the severity of the wrongdoing and the context in which it occurred. Such an approach is not only aligned with the principles of economic analysis of law but also resonates with the foundational concepts of justice and equity in both Western and Islamic legal traditions.
     The study’s comparative analysis of different legal systems demonstrates that countries employing a mixed approach are better positioned to address the complex realities of modern tort law. These systems can more accurately reflect the psychological and behavioral elements of wrongful conduct, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of tort law in deterring harmful behavior, compensating victims, and preserving social order.
     As such, the research advocates for a revision of tort law regulations in jurisdictions that currently adhere to a single compensation approach. It suggests that new laws be drafted to incorporate a mixed approach, allowing for a more flexible and context-sensitive application of compensation methods. This would involve distinguishing between different types of negligence—intentional, gross, and non-intentional—and applying the appropriate compensation method in each case.
     In summary, this research underscores the importance of a holistic approach to tort law that balances the need for victim compensation with the broader societal objectives of deterrence and order. By adopting a mixed approach to compensation, legal systems can more effectively fulfill the comprehensive goals of tort law, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable society.

Civil liability of food producers is one of the new topics of civil liability. The mass production of foods with fresh ingredients, as well as food shortages in significant parts of the world, makes it even more important to pay special attention to this type of responsibility in order to protect the physical health of consumers. In the present study, we intend to explain and evaluate the civil liability of food producers by focusing on the jurisprudential principles and the current legal system of Iran. Jurisprudential and legal study of civil liability of food producers in the current legal system of Iran, indicates the lack of a coherent legal set in this regard. The non-use of modern legal institutions, such as punitive damages in this regard, is another shortcoming of the current Iranian civil liability system. At the legislative level, the current set of regulations of the Iranian legal system in relation to civil liability of food producers, indicates a lack of coherence in accepting the basis of responsibility and also the non-use of new legal institutions in this regard. At the judicial level, the resistance of court procedures in issuing verdicts on specific damages resulting from food consumption is a matter for consideration and requires the adoption of an appropriate approach by the country's judicial policy makers.

The fact that civil liability is based on full compensation and enjoys a restorative nature has afflicted some claims such as those for punitive damages with shortcomings and ambiguities. Such a challenge is not limited only to systems not having recognized punitive damages, rather it affects all legal systems. However, the level of legal systems’ affliction with this problem depends on the amount of formality which they attach to such an institution. Anyway, in the light of economic law development and the formulation of legal rules in areas such as economy, paying attention to the functions and challenges of institutions like punitive damages is quite justifiable. In the current situation, in addition to the issues of identification, the most important challenge facing the above-mentioned institution constitutes the problems resulting from claiming such damages. Therefore, in order to prove the effectiveness and success of the legal entity, we must present appropriate solutions to the challenges in addition to achieving its objectives. The present article, which is based on a pathological review, aims at providing a picture of legal shortcomings which claims for punitive damages suffer from. In line with this, after providing a brief explanation of the concept, objectives, and issues of punitive damages, we examine the obstacles on the way of this institution to gain better understanding meant to provide appropriate solutions for accepting putative damages. What eventually becomes clear is that despite the capabilities of punitive damages for settling some legal problems related to responsibility and deterrence, it does not still enjoy a stable and definitive status it deserves and that legal systems are trying to remove barriers to such an achievement.

By passing Article 729 of Civil Procedure Code of 1318, term of “Civil Penalty” was entered in Iranian legal system which of course it is an adaptation from "Astrant" –a legal entity -in French legal system. By passing Civil Procedure Code of 1379 and because of its changes and modifications that was without an article like Ex 729, some believed in Legally abrogation of such a legal entity from the Iranian legal system while the others think according to the note of Article 47 of the Law on Enforcement of Judgments, this entity still exists in our law. Notwithstanding about mentioned dispute, recently the legislature in some rules such as Note 1 to the repeated article 10 of The Rule of Ownership of Apartments and article 21 of The Rule of Execution of Financial Sentences has set kind of fine that is similar to “civil penalty”. Thus, here we intend generally to study Islamic and Iranian legal systems to determine; whether the entity of “civil penalty” is against Sharia law or not and what it is its nature? Or could we identify it as a general theory? Method which used in this research, was a descriptive-analytical typical (by using libraries facilities, to investigate the answer of these questions) and outcome shows: “civil penalty” is compatible with sharia and sort of punishment that we call it “Taazirat” and we could identify it as a general theory and by the way it is similar to “punitive damages” in English law and also more functional than that entity. So if we pass it as a rule in our legislation, it can help lots of issues of civil law.

Regarding civil responsibility, there is an institution called “punitive damage” in the laws of some countries, according to which in cases where the losses are caused intentionally and bearing ill will, the defendant is judged to pay more than just material and spiritual losses for the damage. Since we didn’t have such an institution in Iranian private law, it is of necessity to study and investigate whether to accept it in the Iranian law. The present research aimed at determining the status of this type of damage in the Iranian jurisprudence and law in order to answer whether it is necessary to recognize punitive damage in Iranian private law. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method and note-takings of the national and foreign books and articles are done through library research. Due to criticisms of punitive damage and considering the fact that there are similar legal institutions such as consideration, blood money, and general principles governing civil responsibility, it seems there is no need, for the Iranian national law, to accept this legal institution. The approval of the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Judiciary on punitive damage claims against foreign states is considered only as a reciprocity act against some foreign states and it should not be regarded as an accepted institution in the Iranian private and internal law.

Extra-contractual liability in its wide sense, is defined as the compensation of losses in the absent of a contract. Although different discussions have been carried out regarding this concept, there are considerable controversies in respect of definition, examples and unity or plurality of extra-contractual liability and contractual liability. It seems that these controversies are mostly the result of the lack of studying of the distinguishing criterion between these two kinds of liability. A criterion which can put an end to some controversies regarding the examples of these two kinds of liability as well as deciding about the new examples which might not be fully comprehensively studied. Although, different criterions can be extracted from existing studies, some critics show the necessity of proposing a specific and acceptable criterion. Some criterions can be distracted from current studies, but they would not prevent non related examples to enter into the scope of the extra-contractual liability. In other word, these criterions are too wide. On the other hand, the perspective about some notions which are used as the current criterions, are not correct. For instance, “contract” itself is considered as one of the criterions. It means that, whenever there is a contract, the liability which arises is contractual. Otherwise, it is considered non- contractual. In this criterion, contract is considered as a material instrument. In other word, the objective aspect of contract is important in this sense, which seems critical from our point of view. Therefore, in this thesis, “volition or will" is proposed as the element which can distinguish contractual and non- contractual liability. Despite the usual objective perspective towards volition and the contract sprang from it, this thesis focuses on the subjective aspect of the said notion. The result of considering volition as the criterion for determining the scope of the extra-contractual and contractual liability is that there might be some situations in which, despite the absence of contract, parties' volition exists. As the result, the liability of parties is considered contractual, although there is no contract between them. For example, the breach of some obligations such as confidentiality which may last even after the termination of a contract is contractual. This is because; the parties’ volition can be attributed to this obligation, although the objective contract between them is terminated. Moreover, sometimes in spite of the existence of the contract, parties' volition doesn't entail the required specifications and as a consequence, can't serve as the basis for the contractual liability. This result is true especially for implicit terms and conditions. These terms can join the contract and might serve as the basis of a contractual liability only if parties’ will is allocated to them therefore, in case of parties’ ignorance about a customary obligation (as an implicit obligation), its breach cannot cause contractual liability. From this perspective, this criterion shall include two specifications. Originality, as the first specification means that parties' will shall be genuine. Parties have to choose an obligation and its liability by their own genuine will. Therefore, imperative rules which are compulsory are not original and can’t serve as a trigger for contractual liability. They are legal obligations and their breach are resulted in non- contractual liability. On the other hand, volition refers to the obligations and commitments which are in line with the main purpose of the contract. This criterion which is also partible with respect to the implied terms and conditions, determines the scope of the said terms which are considered contractual. For instance, duty of care only enters into the contracts which their final purpose is care or something related to that, such as doctors or nurses or those whose duty is considered so critical to hem such as transport enterprises. According to the said criterion, the examples of different kinds of liability are divided into two groups; first, the examples which are not subject of lots of controversies and second, examples which are accompanied with a lot of dissidences. Moreover, providing a criterion which determines the scope of the extra-contractual liability leads to some consequences. Occurrence and proof of the said liability and the compensation of related loss are affected from this criterion and causes some differences between contractual and extra contractual liability.

Among the most important principles governing recovery of damages in Common law systems is that damages are compensatory. The principle applies in the field of the law of contracts as well as the law of torts. By the principle it is meant that damages are paid to compensate the injured party for losses sustained and not to punish the wrongdoer or depriving him from gains acquired by the breach. It has several functions like determining the kind of recoverable damages and limiting them. The latter function has some effects which include: plaintiff must suffer damage; damages are based on the loss of plaintiff and not on the gain of the defendant; damages must not exceeds the loss and damages are not punitive. The principle has faced several challenges but none of them could call into question its validity.After an inquiry into this principle and its functions and effects in common Law system, this article offers a brief study about it in Iranian law. The study shows this principle has not been recognized under the same topic, it could be inferred from various rules and other principles regarding civil liability.

Punitive damages is an institution that is rooted in common law. although in Iranian law there is a legal letter, but is used only in civil cases against some foreign states, it is not actually accepted in domestic law of Iran. To this occasion, works have been written in Persian language, about the possibility of accepting and rejecting it in Iranian law and in Some of them, the introduction of this legal concept to Iranian law is recommended. In this regard, attention to the limitations imposed on punitive damages in the United States of America in recent years can be of great help to researchers in this area. Because the review of these restrictions after years of experience in punitive damages in this country has been designed and to address some of the problems caused by punitive damages, especially the criticisms of the unjust enreachment in punitive damages cases and to ignore defendant’s rights in these cases. According to the proposition, the entry of punitive damages to Iranian law in its pure form and without such restrictions would be out of the way of planning and wisdom. In the present article, five of the most important restrictions that apply to punitive damages in the United States, have been attempted to address punitive damages reforms in American law. These restrictions range from the impossibility of claiming punitive damages in four states from the United States to a ceiling for punitive damages in the laws of more than 25 states in the United States, as well as rigorous laws to demonstrate a specific description of a harmful act and Or its subject in the cases of punitive damages, as well as the receipt of part of the punitive damages in favor of the General Fund.

The main purpose of issuing punitive damage verdict is to make compensation for the loss inflicted on the plaintiff and to restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante. In Iranian law, the basic principle is to recover the damage and restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante, but the punitive damage is completely different. In other countries, including England and the US, in which punitive damage is accepted in a broad sense, the punitive damage is defined aside from any compensatory damages or nominal damages which are considered in issuing the verdict due to extreme misconduct of the defendant. As in the members of Romano-Germanic Legal System, in Iranian law punitive damage is not applied in private lawsuits. Despite this situation, and regarding international aspect, and in response to some measures taken by countries - the US, in particular - in sentencing Iran to punitive damage, the lawmaker, eventually, recognized punitive damage in considering civil lawsuits against foreign governments in 2011. A question, however, arises here is that  it is possible for arbitration institutions in common-law obedient countries to issue punitive damage verdict. In this paper, we discuss this issue and also possibility or non-possibility of execution by national courts of the punitive damage verdicts issued by arbitration institutions.

methods in Iran and UK legal system have been comparatively investigated. This concept, although not defined in Iran laws but by regarding the available legal sources such as Constitution, Civil Liability Act and other laws, there is no doubt for demanding it specially for natural persons and private legal persons and for compensating it, restitutionary and non-financial methods such as apologizing, publishing judgment in newspaper, mutual accountability and also financial compensation are stipulated. However in judicial precedent, compensation of such damage -especially through financial methods- is less accepted. Vice versa in UK legal system, the main method of compensation includes libel and slander by paying some money that, as the case maybe, is made by compensatory damage, symbolic or nominal damage, contemptuous or exemplary damage and the only restitution is injunction. Filing claims on defamation has been common in this country since medieval and so far a lot of judgment has been issued in this case and some rules have been approved. Of course, filing such claims is merely possible for alive natural persons and legal persons like commercial companies and governmental organizations do not have this right.

Punitive damages is an institution that is rooted in common law. Although in Iranian law there is a legal letter, but is used only in civil cases against some foreign states, it is not actually accepted in domestic law of Iran. To this occasion, works have been written in Persian language, about the possibility of accepting and rejecting it in Iranian law and in some of them, the introduction of this legal concept to Iranian law is recommended. In this regard, attention to the limitations imposed on punitive damages in the United States of America in recent years can be of great help to researchers in this area. Because the review of these restrictions after years of experience in punitive damages in this country has been designed and to address some of the problems caused by punitive damages, especially the criticisms of the unjust enreachment in punitive damages cases and to ignore defendant’s rights in these cases. According to the proposition, the entry of punitive damages to Iranian law in its pure form and without such restrictions would be out of the way of planning and wisdom. In the present article, five of the most important restrictions that apply to punitive damages in the United States, have been attempted to address punitive damages reforms in American law. These restrictions range from the impossibility of claiming punitive damages in four states from the United States to a ceiling for punitive damages in the laws of more than 25 states in the United States, as well as rigorous laws to demonstrate a specific description of a harmful act and Or its subject in the cases of punitive damages, as well as the receipt of part of the punitive damages in favor of the General Fund.

One of the most important rules that has been accepted in whole legal systems, is irrevocability of contracts whose the most clearest conclusion consists in the complete fulfilment of any contract by parties to it. Sometimes although the contract is absolutely valid and in force and the obligations there are applicable, the obligator does not fulfill his/her obligations without any justified excuse and deprive the other party of the benefits of the contracts. So every legal system on the basis of its theorical bases introduce some methods for requiring the refusing obligator in order to protect the obligee contractual rights. One of the significant ways and sanctions which have been considered and applied in some national legal systems is called fine. But there are, in addition to it, another ways for requiring the contract parties for example collateral and Punitive damages. The aim of Punitive damages is requiring the refusing obligator but the aim of collateral is determination of contractual liability or determination of violation damage or requiring the refusing obligator. In addition the base of Punitive damages comes from public order but in collateral, it comes from meeting of minds. Anyway, in this article, after introducing these ways perfectly, we will compare them.

“Punitive damages” is a concept versus “compensatory damages” which are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff unlike compensatory damages, but they are a reaction to the intentional behavior in the event of malice that the defendant of a civil liability lawsuit has been acted. These kinds of damages have been recently absorbed the attention of analysts and courts especially in Common Law system because of the two major reasons: high costs of proceedings and the incompetency intentions observed in some fields of civil liability. Thus, they benefited from the necessity of defendant to pay a price that has not purely the compensatory characteristic.
In this study efforts have been made to explain the objectives, applications and justifications that have been presented for the punitive damages. Punitive damage consists of two widespread social purposes that the law-makers are more interested in the goal of punishment and the economic analysts are more interested in Economic Analysis of Law in order to execute its deterrence. But the aim of deterrence is to prevent the commitment of intentional harms or those of harms that defendant is able to escape liability against them.
In the aim of deterrence, we intend to impose liability to the defendant due to his previous performance, he and other people who are in the same condition in order to stop them from committing a harmful incidence. Therefore the goal of punishment is resulted from the intention of people to punish the blameworthy people. Thus, we assume that the goal of punishment finally results from the enjoyment or satisfaction that people gain from seeing the perpetrators being punished.
Methodologically, in this article beside the law perspective, the perspective of Economic Analysis of Law has been additionally used. In the Economic Analysis, the economic tools are used in evaluating this damage. That’s why aims which are in consideration of authors in this specific model of liability in the Economic Analysis of Law are explained. In the approach of Economic Analysis of Law, the law rules are tools to reach the important social goals; in other words, based on the economic perspective, the law sanctions are tantamount to prices and when these tools are incomplete in establishing our aims, they could be modified. As a result, since the people respond to the prices, they will respond to the sanctions too and to the stronger sanctions with less commitment of related activities as well.
Theoretically, in the punitive damages which are a type of extra-compensatory damages due to the higher price of compensation from the perpetrators, the cost of action for activists in that field goes up and brings about a stronger preventive force in contrast to the compensatory damages so that he should exercise caution more than a person in normal environment. Thus, if the punitive damages are mandated excessively, it will cause a problem so-called over deterrence.
For Professor Cooter, the punitive damage should involve the goal of deterrence and this goal is recognized according to three policies that the punitive damages consist of. Three policy conclusions follow from this analysis: punitive damages should be restricted to intentional faults; a criterion for identifying intentional fault is that it is gross or repeated; and punitive damages should be computed to offset the injurer’s illicit pleasure from noncompliance or exceptional cost of compliance. In this respect, the players receive behavioral incentives from the civil liability. It is connotatively assumed that if a tort perpetrator brings about harms for which he will be liable, he will be liable too. Therefore, he will face all the negative externalities caused. However, there are many conditions that the probability of making the perpetrators liable is under 100%. In other words, those perpetrators should be known liable may try to escape the trial. Under these conditions, the use of punitive damages is useful.
In general, it should be noted about the internal law condition that the Iranian writers in the case of civil liability mostly pay attention to the traditional aims of this mechanism and in facing the punitive damages know its punishment and trial aspects so that they feel it is inappropriate for their restorative system. The deterrence aspect of punitive damages in the writings of foreign-authors possesses stronger aspect and the Economic Analysts have mentioned logical justifications which generally have been designed to internalize all the harmful effects of individual’s behavior. In sum, based on the punishment perspective, punitive damages are not justifiable in our internal law because they have restorative essence but from the deterrence perspective, all theories such as escaping liability, encouraging market transactions and removing the illicit benefits are somehow trying to internalize the damages that the individual has brought in to the society and the harmed person and is very close to the restorative essence. If the deterrence perspective and justifications are accepted in Iranian Law, no reason will be existed for accepting the punitive damages due to having non-restorative nature and the principle of full compensation because we will utilize the punitive damages for compensating all the damages that the perpetrator brought in to the society. This is exactly the aim that the Economic Analyses of Law expect from the civil liability, so as to be expressed in these types of analyses, the aim of the civil liability system is internalizing the external effects caused by the perpetrator. In other words, the punitive damages finally possess the compensatory essence because of the deterrence perspective.

Lun des sujets contestables en droit civil iranien est "les dommages réparables" dans le domaine de la résponsabilité contractuelle. Les articles 221 et 386 du code civil iranien sont basés sur un point de vue très restraint et limité; le point de vue aboutissant pratiquement à une inefficacité du système juridique vis-à-vis des fautes contractuelle. De plus, larticle 515 du code de la procédure civile, en annoncant que les dommages venant du gain manqué ne sont pas à reclamer, a empiré la difficulté du statut des dommages réparables. Dans une telle ambiance, l'étude de la position de droit civil Québécois, influencée par le droit francais tout comme le droit inranien, peut être très instructive pour les jurists iraniens. Dans cet article sont étudiés les différentes sortes des dommages réparables en fonction de la nature de lobligation contractuelle et du type de la faute commise, ainsi que les méthodes de l'évaluation des préjudices et les moyens du dédommagement.

Punitive damage is a kind of Supra-compensatory damage which is awarded in favor of Plaintiff in Civil actions for punishing the defendant and deterring him from taking action like that in future. The main feature of punitive verdict is deterrence and punishment and in this regard two economic theories exist (optimal deterrence and gain elimination theories). However punitive aspect of this damage is a reason that to be considered as an identity with criminal nature and not to be applied in private actions. Lack of predictability of this damage and sometimes large and backbreaking sentences which make it more complicated, made the United States courts to come up with several strategies for limiting the punitive damages.

This article, first, provides that, in Iran’s legal system, the principle is that all damages are compensated and any loss is restored to its previous situation. The article, then, argues that the courts in Iran do not consider punitive damages in their judgments but alternative remedies such as blood money and liquidated damages are provided in civil and criminal codes. However, none of these solutions can replace the punitive damages.Legislature first recognizes punitive damages in the amendment of the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Courts in Civil Cases against Foreign States (1379), and ultimately confirms it in the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Courts in Civil Cases against Foreign States (1390), In response to judgments in countries where punitive damages were decided against Iran.