Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

A Comparative Study on the General Theory of Gross Imbalance in Light of the 2016 Reforms of the French Civil Code and Its Position in Iranian Law

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Author
Mostafa Harati
Department of Specialized Law, Faculty of Law, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2069860.1692
Abstract
The concept of gross contractual imbalance has become one of the most significant legal instruments for combating contractual abuse, particularly in relationships marked by evident economic or social inequality between the parties. The primary objective of this doctrine is to prevent the imposition of unfair terms and to restore a minimal degree of equilibrium between the reciprocal obligations of the contracting parties. The theory seeks to ensure that contractual consent is deemed valid only when formed under conditions of fairness and balance. In French law, the origin of this concept can be traced to consumer law, where the legislator, seeking to protect the weaker party from one‑sided contractual conditions, empowered judges to review, amend, or annul unfair terms. Gradually, its influence expanded beyond the sphere of consumer protection, gaining autonomous recognition in commercial law through Article L.442‑I(2) of the Commercial Code. Ultimately, during the comprehensive reform of 2016, the legislator incorporated this concept into the core of contract law, most notably within Article 1171 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to this provision, the judge is authorized to intervene actively in assessing contractual balance and to remove or invalidate any clause that creates a manifest disproportion in the parties’ respective obligations. In Iranian law, the Sharia‑based principles of La‑Zarar (no harm) and Nafy‑al‑‘Osr wa al‑Haraj (elimination of hardship) establish a normative foundation for modifying or nullifying contractual terms that cause excessive harm or undue hardship to one party. Where such harm or hardship is proven, the judge may amend the terms, order partial adjustment, or dissolve the contract altogether. Functionally, these principles operate similarly to Article 1171 of the French Civil Code as instruments for achieving contractual justice. This comparative study demonstrates that, although the philosophical bases of the French and Iranian legal systems differ—France emphasizing contractual fairness and judicial intervention, and Iran relying on religious and jurisprudential principles—both systems pursue the limitation of severe inequalities and the restoration of substantive fairness in contractual relations. The main distinction lies in the degree of judicial involvement and the balance between judicial control and the principle of contractual freedom: whereas French law adopts a wider scope of judicial review, Iranian law relies primarily on traditional fiqh doctrines and classical options (khiyarat) to maintain equitable equilibrium in contracts.
Keywords
Balance
contractual justice
harmlessness
meaningful

Subjects

Persian Sources
1.        Asadi, A., Parsapour, M.B., & Badini, H. (2018). Protection of the weaker party in contracts through constitutional law. Private Law Research Journal, No. 23, (In Persian)
2.         Ghorashi, S.M., Alipour Qoushchi, S., & Rezazadeh Bari, A. (2017). Application of the rule of hardship (‘osr o haraj) in contract adaptation. Journal of Legal Studies, No. 16, (In Persian)
3.         Tabatabaei Yazdi, S.M.K. (1948). Mulhaqāt al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqā. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office, (In Persian)
4.        safaey,S. H. (2019). New ideas in " theory of equilibrium" and its comparison with some French theories. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 2(5), 305-347. doi: 10.22034/law.2019.239843, (In Persian)
5.         Hashemi,S. A. and tavakolikia,O. (2023). The Emergence and Evolution of the Theory of Cause of Obligation in the History of French Law. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 5(17), 151-196. doi: 10.22034/law.2023.1978058.1203, (In Persian)
6.         Jafari Langeroudi, M.J. (2023). General Philosophy of Law: Theory of Balance. 6th ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh, (In Persian)
7.         Ghamami, M. (2023). Economic equilibrium: the key to contractual stability. 4th ed. Tehran: Sahami Enteshar, (In Persian)
8.         Mohaqqeq Damad, S.M. (2021). General theory of negation of hardship in Islamic law. 2nd ed. Tehran: Sokhan, (In Persian)
9.         Katouzian, N. (2024). Civil Law: The General Rules of Contracts, Vol. 2 (Effects of Contracts). 10th ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh, (In Persian)
10.      Karimi, A., & Karimi, S. (2022). Reflections in Contract Law. 2nd ed. Tehran: Dadgostar Publications, (In Persian).
11.      Karimi, A. (2002). Imposed clauses in the light of the general rules of contracts. Legal Research Journal, No. 1, (In Persian)
12.       Mousavi Bojnourdi, S.M. (2024). Qa‘idah Fiqhiyyah (Jurisprudential Maxims), Vol. 2. Tehran: Majd Scientific and Cultural Institute, (In Persian)
Foreign Sources
Books
13.     Fin-Langer, L. (2000). L’équilibre contractuel. Paris: LGDJ, (In French)
14.     Ferrier, D. & Ferrier, N. (2020). Droit de la distribution. 9th ed. Paris: LexisNexis, (In French)
15.      Fin-Langer, L. (2020). L’équilibre contractuel. Paris: LGDJ. , (In French)
16.      Calais-Auloy, J. (2008). De la notion de commerçant à celle de professionnel, in Études de droit privé offertes à Paul Didier. Paris: Economica, (In French)
17.      Boucard, H. (2012). Le contrôle des clauses abusives et déséquilibrantes dans les contrats, in Les fonctions du contrôle en droits français et néerlandais. Paris: LGDJ, (In French)
18.      Goldie-Genicon, C. (2005). Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit commun et le droit spécial des contrats. Paris: LGDJ, (In French)
Articles
19.      Auqué, F. (2018). Ratification de l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats: impact sur les baux commerciaux. AJDI, (In French)
20.      Mazeaud, D. (2018). Quelques mots sur la réforme de la réforme du droit des contrats. Recueil Dalloz.
21.      Testu, F.-X. (1993). Le juge et le contrat d’adhésion. JCP G, No. 18, I, 3673, (In French)
22.      Andrieu, T. & Dreux, C. (2018). La réforme du droit des contrats ratifiée: la cohérence et la sécurité juridique préservées. Gazette du Palais, (In French)
23.      Idot, L. (2021). Réflexions sur l’application internationale des articles L. 442-1, L. 442-3 et L. 442-4 du Code de Commerce, in Mélanges Ferrier. Paris: LexisNexis, (In French)
24.      Licari, F. (2017). Du déséquilibre significatif dans les contrats: quelle articulation entre les textes ? Revue Lamy Droit Civil (RLDC), (In French)
25.      Chénedé, F. (2018). La réforme du droit des contrats et le dialogue des chambres: vers de justes compromis ? AJ Contrat, (In French)
26.      Behar-Touchais, M. (2015). Un déséquilibre significatif à deux vitesses. JCP, (In French)
27.      Goldie-Genicon, C. (2008). L’assurance de groupe à l’épreuve de la législation sur les clauses abusives. Dalloz, Chron. 2447, (In French)
28.      Malaurie-Vignal, M. (2018). Un, deux ou trois déséquilibres significatifs ? Réflexion sur l’articulation entre droit commun et droits spéciaux, in Mélanges Lucas de Leyssac, Paris: LexisNexis, (In French)
29.      Revet, T. (2018). L’incohérent cantonnement, par l’Assemblée nationale, du domaine du contrat d’adhésion aux contrats de masse. Dalloz, (In French)
30.      Schiller, S. (2017). L’acte rédigé par un notaire ou un avocat peut-il être qualifié de contrat d’adhésion ? JCP, (In French)
Case Law
31.     Court of Appeal of Angers, 24 Apr. 2012, RG No. 11/01541, (In French)
32.      CJEU, 30 May 2013, Asbeek Brusse and de Man Garabito, Case C‑488/11, para 30, RTD eur. 2013, 559 (Aubert de Vincelles) , (In French)
33.     French Civil Court (1st Ch.), 22 May 2008, No. 05‑21.822, Bull. civ. I, No. 145; D. 2008, AJ 1547, obs. Delpech, (In French)
34.      French Civil Court (1st Ch.), 3 Feb. 2011, No. 08‑14.402, Bull. civ. I, No. 23; D. 2011, 1659, note Chantepie, (In French)
35.     CJEU, 30 May 2013, Asbeek Brusse et de Man Garabito, op. cit., paras 28 & 31, (In French)
36.      CJEU, 15 Jan. 2015, Šiba, Case C‑537/13, D. actu., 21 Jan. 2015, obs. Portmann; D. 2015, Pan. 592, obs. Sauphanor‑Brouillaud, (In French)
37.     French Civil Court (1st Ch.), 26 Apr. 2017, Air France, No. 15‑18.970, (In French)
38.      Recommendations No. 14‑02, para 10; Recommendation No. 17‑02, para 3; TGI Paris, 7 Aug. 2018, Twitter, RG 14/07300, (In French)
39.     French Civil Court (1st Ch.), 26 Sept. 2019, Nos 18‑10.890 & 18‑10.891, D. 2020, Pan. 628, obs. Sauphanor‑Brouillaud, (In French)
40.      French Constitutional Council, 13 Jan. 2011, Case No. 2010‑85 QPC, D. 2011, 415, note Picod, (In French)
41.     Commercial Chamber, 25 June 2015, No. 14‑28.013 , (In French)
42.      Commercial Chamber, 15 Sept. 2009, No. 08‑19.200, (In French)
43.     Commercial Chamber, 25 Jan. 2017, No. 15‑23.547, D. 2017, 481, note Buy; JCP E 2017, 1135, note Le Gac‑Pech; RTD civ. 2017, 383, obs. Barbier; RTD com. 2017, 601, obs. Chagny, (In French)
44.     Paris Court of Appeal, 29 Mar. 2018, RG No. 15/09798, (In French)
 
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 13 October 2025