Explanation of Article 577
Article stipulates the worker's right to request the court to annul and terminate the agricultural partnership contract if an unforeseen excuse arises that burdens him from completing the work; this is applicable whenever the conditions for annulment due to the unforeseen excuse are met. The system, in stipulating this ruling, considered the nature of this contract as being of delayed execution, where the intended purpose may not be achieved until the end of its term; thus, it is likely for an excuse to arise for the worker that prevents him from completing the work, causing him to lose his effort and expenses.
It is noted that the system did not grant this right to the financier, as there is no justification for it; because his obligation is limited to delivering the land or trees and enabling the worker to work, and this obligation is usually not affected by the specific excuse that arises, such as illness, relocation, and the like.
For the worker to annul the agricultural partnership contract due to an unforeseen excuse, three conditions must be met: The first condition: The excuse must arise after the contract is made; this condition excludes the following: A- If the excuse existed before the contract or was anticipated, he has no right to annul. B- If he caused it, or delayed in fulfilling his obligation and then the excuse arose; he has no right to annul.
The second condition: It must be specific to the worker and related to his execution of the work, such as an illness that burdens him from working, or his work being transferred to another country without his choice. If the unforeseen excuse is general and not specific to the worker, the rule of general exceptional circumstances with its conditions applies.
The third condition: It must result in the execution being burdensome for the worker, excluding the following: A- If the unforeseen event makes execution impossible due to a reason beyond the worker's control; in this case, his obligation and the corresponding obligation are terminated, and the contract is annulled automatically according to Article (110) of the general rules. B- If the contract is not based on considerations related to the worker's person; execution is not considered burdensome for him in this case.
When the previous conditions are met, the worker has the right to request the annulment of the contract, and the court has the authority to assess the excuse claimed by the worker and its eligibility for annulment, and its ruling in this case creates the annulment, not merely confirms it.
The worker has the right to withdraw the annulment request before it is ruled if the excuse ceases, and once annulment is decided, it has a retroactive effect on the period not fully executed, but not on the part that was completed; if the contract was for three agricultural cycles and the excuse arose during the third cycle, the worker is entitled to his share of the output of the first two cycles upon its appearance, and annulment does not apply to it, in accordance with the rule of non-retroactivity of annulment in time-bound contracts as stipulated in Article (111) of the general rules. Annulment applies to the period of the third cycle whose output has not appeared; the worker is entitled to compensation equivalent to the wage for similar work and the value of his expenses, to the extent that it benefited the financier, which aligns with the rules of unjust enrichment.
The worker's entitlement to compensation under unjust enrichment does not prevent the financier's right to compensation for the damage he suffered due to the annulment; the worker's work may not benefit the financier due to the inability to complete the work or increased costs, yet the financier suffers damage due to the annulment and is entitled to compensation.
It is noteworthy that the system did not mention in this section the reasons for the termination of the agricultural partnership contract except those specifically related to this contract, which is annulment due to an unforeseen excuse, and did not mention other reasons, relying on general rules; thus, it also ends for the reasons that end profit-sharing contracts, and for the general reasons for contract termination in general; it ends with the expiration of its term if it is of a specified duration, considering what is stated in Article (574) and Article (576), or by completing the work upon reaching harvest or cutting, and the worker is not obliged to harvest or cut the financier's share unless there is an explicit or implicit agreement otherwise according to Article (576); such as when custom or usual dealings between them require the worker to harvest or cut.
The contracting parties have the right to annul the contract before its execution by mutual consent, and either party can annul it judicially or by agreement for breach of obligation, subject to the general rules of annulment. The contract is also annulled due to the impossibility of execution by the destruction of the subject matter, or the death of the worker or his inability to work for a reason beyond his control, provided his person was a consideration in the contract or his work was stipulated to be done by himself. If the worker was not intended for his person in the contract, the contract is not annulled by his death, but the heirs have the right to request annulment if they choose not to complete the work, and the financier has the right to request annulment if they do not provide sufficient guarantees for executing the work. In both latter cases - whether the contract is annulled due to the impossibility of execution for a reason beyond the worker's control or annulment by the heirs or the financier in case of the worker's death, the financier is obliged to pay the worker or the estate, as the case may be, compensation for the unrealized output equivalent to the wage for similar work and the value of his expenses, to the extent that it benefited the financier from these works and expenses.
Related To
Article 577
A worker may demand termination of an agricultural partnership contract if an urgent matter relating to the performance of the contract occurs prior to the maturity of the output. In such case, he shall be entitled to the prevailing market fee together with any expenses incurred by him the amount of which shall be proportionate to the benefit gained by the landowner, without prejudice to the landowner’s right to compensation, if applicable.