The Status of Time-Related Changes in the Legal Framework of Government Construction Contracts: A Comparative Study of Iranian and English Model Contracts

Time can be considered the most fundamental concept in construction contracts, as the benefits for each party depend on adhering to the contract's timeline. If the contractor complies with the schedule, they will not face claims for damages or contractual penalties, and governments, as employers, will achieve their economic, social, and political objectives for the project by adhering to this timeline. However, sometimes due to certain factors, this schedule may face delays and disruptions, which can lead to future disputes between the contractor and the employer. In English law, due to the long-standing development of the industry, temporal concepts in construction contracts are meticulously reflected in judicial precedents and standard contracts used in this field. Concepts such as suspension, concurrent delays, acceleration of contract performance, and extension of time clauses—each of which can be a source of potential disputes between employers and contractors—are well-defined in this system and supported by a coherent body of case law, providing clear and reliable standards. In this article, we aim to conduct a comparative study of the doctrines and judicial practices of the legal systems of Iran and England, examining similar and effective concepts, and referencing judicial rulings and expert opinions on the role of time in construction contracts and its implications. By doing so, we seek to lay the groundwork for understanding new dimensions and less-known fundamental concepts, thereby assisting the legislative and executive environment of the country in adopting fair and professional strategies and, consequently, reducing the legal risks faced by the government.