Originality of Automatic Guarantee and Its Priority to Contractual Responsibility in Imami Jurisprudence

Contractual obligations may be fulfilled with delay or not fulfilled at all, and this is followed by losses borne by the other party. Breach of contractual obligations is accompanied by many problems one of which is the relation between the responsibility produced by breach of the contract and non-contractual responsibility. In this regard, some scholars believe in plurality of responsibility and some others have adopted the theory of unity of responsibility. The present article mainly aims to discuss the relation between automatic guarantee and contractual guarantee to prove originality of the former. As a result of this discussion, from a juridical point of view, the author discusses why the issue of expectancy damages caused by breach of the contract is not accepted. It seems that the most important reason behind this non-acceptance is the idea of guarantee and the conception of property. As a substantive edict, the idea of guarantee rules all branches of jurisprudence including contracts. According to the well-known theory, even though it is unlawful to breach contractual obligations, breacher's guarantee may be accepted as long as the rules of automatic guarantee may be executed. As a result, if conditions for automatic guarantee cannot be fulfilled, breach of contract does not by itself create a bond for the breacher.