دور نظرية الغبن في حماية المتعاقد في مبادئ اليونيدروا و القانون الفلسطيني : دراسة مقارنة

Abstract EN

This research aims to compare the legal texts governing the gross disparity in the UNIDROIT Principles with Palestinian law represented by Majalla, applicable in the West Bank, and the civil law in force in Gaza Strip.

It aims to draw the position of these legal systems from gross disparity, and determine their role in protecting the aggrieved party.

The importance of studying this subject is due to the fact that the UNIDROIT Principles represent a modern and unique trend in its organization of the gross disparity, while Majalla represents the position of Islamic jurisprudence in this regard, and the civil law in Gaza Strip reflects the trend in Egyptian civil law and Arab laws that were affected by it.

In order to determine the role of the theory of gross disparity in protection of the aggrieved party under UNIDROIT Principles and Palestinian law, the research adopts the comparative and analytical approach; it analyzes and compares the related legal texts and links them to doctrinal trends and judicial applications.

The research concludes, among other things, that the UNIDROIT Principles better govern gross disparity than Palestinian law.

The UNIDROIT Principles recognize gross disparity as an independent ground for avoidance of the contract; gross disparity should not be accompanied by any other defect of will, like exploitation, fraud ...

etc.

Unlike Palestinian law, the UNIDROIT Principles also provide the aggrieved party with huge protection by establishing a broad concept of gross disparity and adopting flexible and multiple sanctions for the gross disparity.