Document Type : Review Article
Author
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran.
Abstract
∴ Introduction ∴
In the contract for the sale of generic goods (Bi’ al-kullī fī al-dhammah), there are no ascertained goods agreed upon between the contracting parties at the time the contract is established. Legal systems utilize various methods, such as description or sample, to ascertain the object of the sale contract for generic goods. However, disputes frequently arise between the parties concerning the conformity of the delivered goods with the characteristics stipulated in the contract. These disagreements necessitate structured legal mechanisms for dispute resolution. This research provides a comparative analysis of these methods and resolution procedures under the selected legal systems of Iran, England, and Egypt.
∴ Research Question ∴
The core research objective is two-fold: first, to examine the specific ways of ascertaining the object of the sale contract in the sale of generic goods under Iranian, English, and Egyptian laws. Second, the study seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of dispute resolution ways in those systems when controversies arise regarding the proper identification or conformity of the generic goods. The analysis specifically investigates the role of descriptive elements (like quantity and material), conditional elements (like suitability for purpose), and the formal rules governing the allocation of the burden of proof in case of non-conformity.
∴ Research Hypothesis ∴
The article operates under the hypothesis that while core methods of ascertainment (description and sample) are shared, significant divergences exist regarding conditional ascertainment methods and the rules governing the burden of proof. It is hypothesized that English law employs a broader scope of ascertainment, including the criterion of suitability for a specific purpose, which is absent in the traditional Iranian and Egyptian frameworks. Furthermore, the study expects to find that the operational rules governing dispute resolution, particularly the formal right of examination, are more systematically defined in English and Egyptian laws than in the general rules relied upon in Iranian law.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method based on library sources. The primary analytical framework involves a comparative study of the legal provisions and jurisprudential principles concerning the sale of generic goods across Iranian, English, and Egyptian laws. The analysis focuses on how each system defines and resolves disputes across criteria such as quantity, genus, description, and conformity with the sample. Crucially, the framework evaluates the distinct approaches to the burden of proof and the buyer's right of examination within the different legal traditions.
∴ Results & Discussion ∴
The results confirm that Iranian law and Egyptian law ascertain generic goods primarily through description or sample. However, English law incorporates, alongside these methods, the test of suitability of the object of sale for a specific contractual purpose. Regarding dispute resolution, Iranian law applies general rules of evidence, requiring the seller to prove conformity at the time of delivery, and the buyer to establish non-conformity post-delivery. In contrast, English and Egyptian laws grant the buyer the right of examination at the time of delivery. In English law, the burden of proving non-conformity is placed on the buyer, while in Egyptian law, the buyer must request the court to examine the goods if they lack contractual characteristics. The establishment of the features of the object sold in Egyptian law is ultimately on the buyer.
∴ Conclusion ∴
The study concludes that the identification methods for generic goods, particularly the English inclusion of suitability for a specific purpose, offer valuable insights for legal development in Iran. While Iranian law relies on general rules of evidence, requiring the claimant (be it seller or buyer) to prove their claim, English and Egyptian laws provide more specialized mechanisms for dispute resolution, notably through the formalized right of examination at delivery. The procedural approach used in Egyptian law for addressing disputes, which follows the principle of Istiṣḥāb al-dayn (presumption of debt), offers a systematic methodology that could be utilized in Iranian law to resolve conflicts regarding contractual conformity.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
