A Comparative study on the Role of Supreme Court to Review of the ‎Lower Courts' judgments with regards to the Interpretation of Contract ‎as a matter of Law or Fact; Iranian and French Law Approach

It is of special importance to distinguish legal matters from factual ones in the interpretation of contracts in order to clarify the scope of the (first instance) judge's authority and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court judge enjoys absolute authority in the process of interpretation to ascertain the intention of the parties, and the Supreme Court cannot restrict such authority. However, there are exceptions where the Supreme Court can intervene and overturn a judgment. For example, when a judge distorts a contract under the pretext of interpretation, the Supreme Court may overturn the judgment. It merits mention that the Supreme Court is responsible for supervising the proper enforcement of rules in courts; in other words, it controls the legal issues of interpretation. To put it simply, when a judge makes a mistake in aligning a judgment with the facts, the Supreme Court will overturn the judgment. Comparing Iran’s legal system with that of France, this descriptive-analytical study aims to distinguish the legal aspects/matters of contracts from their factual aspects/matters. This will clarify the scope of the Supreme Court's intervention and the authority of the court of first instance in interpreting contracts, considering that the Iranian legislature expresses no opinion in this regard. Typically, in both Iranian and French legal systems, the Supreme Court can only exercise jurisdiction over legal matters.