A Critique on the Judicial Precedent regarding the Claims for Delay Damages of Currency Payment

Analyses on the Judicial Precedent regarding the Claims for Delay Damages of Currency Payment AbstractFollowing the currency crises of 1993, 2002, 2012 and the recent foreign exchange crisis and the non-fulfillment of currency obligations in due time is the claim for a delay in payment of foreign currency which is one of the most complex and prevalent claims today. The judicial precedent in this regard is not established and is open to contrasting views. The origin of the dispute results from the nature of the currency obligations and its non-prevalence. One stated comment (as the dominant view) suggests that the common currency mentioned in Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Code for Public and Civil Revolutionary Courts has been dedicated to the domestic currency money and does not include any foreign exchanges and the other opinion would suggest that this lawsuit is actionable. The same dispute exists in respect with the private agreement on determining the delay damage of payment obligations (including currency and Rial). In view of the undeniable exchange role and value of the currency in economic activities and the need to support foreign investment, It is essential to legally examine and review this claim and its reasons and justifications. It seems that the Article 522 of the mentioned law, which is cited by the courts, seeks to govern the purchasing power of the money and does not include the determination of the contractual monetary obligation and the delay damage in payment in its strict sense, and in light of the legal citations and documents which approve of the claim in delay damages of payment and its basic philosophy, it is possible to hear the claim and decide upon it in favor of the on the payment in foreign currency for the delay damages in payment.