The Impact of the No-Harm Rule on the Limitation of Contractual Freedom: A Comparative Study in Imami Jurisprudence, Iranian Law, and French Law

Abstract

Contractual freedom, as one of the fundamental principles of private law, plays a significant role in regulating individuals’ legal and economic relations; nevertheless, this freedom is subject in all legal systems to certain limitations aimed at preventing the imposition of unjustified harm and ensuring contractual justice. In Imami jurisprudence, the principle prohibiting harm to others is embodied in the no-harm rule (qāʿidat lā ḍarar), which, as a governing rule, makes it possible to restrict the effects of contractual intent where appreciable harm occurs. The main issue of this research is to explain how the no-harm rule affects the limitation of contractual freedom and to comparatively examine its function in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and French law. The objective of the study is to analyze the foundations and scope of application of the no-harm rule in Imami jurisprudence and to identify its reflections and functional equivalents in the legal systems of Iran and France by employing a functional comparative approach. The research method is descriptive–analytical, and the data have been collected based on jurisprudential sources, statutory laws, judicial practice, and legal doctrine. The findings indicate that in Imami jurisprudence, the no-harm rule fundamentally, though exceptionally, limits contractual freedom, and the mere consent of the parties does not by itself justify harmful contractual outcomes. In Iranian law, although this rule is only limitedly articulated in ordinary legislation, it is applied through principles such as Article 40 of the Constitution, public order, and the prohibition of abuse of rights. In French law, although there is no general and unified rule equivalent to the no-harm rule, the prohibition of abuse of rights, as the most significant analogous and corresponding institution to the no-harm rule, plays a central role in controlling the manner of exercising contractual rights and preventing unjustified harm. Overall, a functional convergence can be observed among the three legal systems in limiting contractual freedom in order to prevent unjustified harm, although the theoretical foundations and methods of applying these limitations differ.