Time-bound conditions in continuous contracts from the perspective of Iranian and Egyptian law

This article conducts a comparative study of time-bound conditions in continuous contracts (such as long-term lease, contracting, and assignment contracts) from the perspective of Iranian and Egyptian law in order to determine the effect and time requirements in continuous contracts and their effect on the legal order and maintaining the balance of the contract in two legal systems with different foundations (jurisprudential and consolidated).The present research method is descriptive-analytical and comparative and compares two central issues, namely, adjusting the liability and managing changing circumstances.Some of the most important findings of this study indicate that Iranian law, relying on the principle of contract necessity, does not accept the judge's authority to adjust the disproportionate obligation and in cases of force majeure, often only orders the termination of the contract (except in exceptional cases of recourse to hardship). In contrast, Egyptian law is more flexible.The judge is authorized to adjust the amount of the bond under Article 224 of the Egyptian Civil Code.And more importantly, by explicitly accepting the theory of circumstances, according to paragraph 2 of Article 147 of the Civil Code, he has the authority to modify the contract and save it from collapse in unpredictable circumstances.Thus, Egyptian law has provided the judge with more efficient legal tools to maintain economic stability and the survival of ongoing contracts in critical situations, while the Iranian law approach, with its legal limitations, often leads to contract termination and the loss of economic equilibrium.