Abstract

The phrase “who says contractual, says justice” (qui dit contractuel dit juste) does not fully express the truth of present reality, where the phrase itself falls into doubt, since a contract does not always result in fair obligations. In this regard, the French judiciary realized that the absence of justice in a contract might arise as a result of the contractual freedom afforded to the contracting parties. Thus, the idea of Commutative Justice in the contract was developed, such as, the Chronopost’s decision which is considered one of its most important applications. However, the equivalence of rights and obligations in the Palestinian Draft Civil Code only exists in a virtual form, without any content that actually contributes to the achievement of the equivalence between rights and obligations in contracts. This article seeks to prove that the provisions of the causation theory in the Palestinian Draft Civil Code can be used as an effective means for achieving contractual justice between the contracting parties, in order to maintain economic contractual equilibrium of the contract. To do so, the function of the causation theory should be analysed in a comparative analytical approach with the Chronopost’s decision to illustrate the Palestinian legislative deficiencies. It will also show the need for adopting the French judicial approach, which will establish a general rule that any arbitrary clause that contravenes the essential obligation of the contract is considered to be unwritten, regardless of the nature or the subject matter of the contract.