•  
  •  
 

Abstract

There are two directions in the comparative civil legislations regarding the extent of considering deceit as one of the defective assent. One direction states that mere deceit affects contract validity, while the other direction provides that deceit is to be accompanied by exorbitant hardship in order to affect contract validity. The Iraqi and UAE legislators go in the second direction and provide that deceit should be accompanied by exorbitant hardship in order to affect contract validity. However, they do not take into account that even little hardship would not occur in donation contracts because there is no compensation in donation contracts in the first place. Thus, the hypothesis of this research is that the Iraqi and UAE legislators do not deal with cases of deceit in donation contracts, so the aim of this research is to show the impact of deceit in these contracts in light of the provisions of Iraqi civil law and the UAE civil transactions law based on a comparative analytical approach. One of the most important conclusions of this research is that the provision of the defective assent with hardship in both mentioned laws is limited to netting contracts and there is no room for its application in donation contracts. This conclusion confirms the existence of a legal gap in the defective assent in the Iraqi civil law and the UAE civil transactions law regarding the effect of deceit on donation contracts, accordingly, one of the recommendations of this research is the need to address this issue through the amendment of Article 121 of the Iraqi civil law and Article 187 of the UAE civil transactions law in order to avoid this legislative gap.

Download

Included in

Civil Law Commons

Share

COinS